Portland needs 123,000 new housing units over the next 20 years if it’s going to accommodate the 400,000 new residents that are going to move here, and those new units are all going to need to go within existing boundaries, says Metro.
Metro Council on Thurs., Nov. 12 voted unanimously to keep the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)—the boundary separating urban development from protected farmland—where it is. The councilors consider re-bounding the area every six years, and this year is the first time in more than a decade that they’ve elected not to move it.
Earlier this year, Metro President Tom Hughes during a presentation at City Club said studies show the city has a 20-year supply of buildable residential and industrial land, though he also said the council is “nervous about the projections” and admitted the studies could have been affected by the recession.
The decision came after Metro worked with other local government agencies to come up with the “Buildable Land Inventory,” which studies how much land within the current UGB is either vacant or underutilized. According to that study, and even with current zoning there’s enough room for 400,000 new units, including 118,000 single-family homes.
Metro’s got a lot of numbers (in some neat infographics) about how Portland’s growing:
- Oregonmetro.gov
And, I think we all knew this, but most of the people moving here are coming from California. Metro’s study says that the top five cities contributing to Portland’s growth are, in order: Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, San Diego, and Riverside.
Metro is planning on doing periodic check-ins on how the region is growing. The latest is an interesting read.
The UGB will be an increasingly controversial issue here. Adding “a city the size of Lake Oswego” to the Metro area every year is stunning and not easily accommodated. Most people here are anti-“sprawl” but many such people are being directly impacted by the housing situation now. Like multiple rent increases a year, and very hard to find any alternative rentals. That is going to weaken the resolve on the UGB.
Housing will be more and more expensive due to simple supply constraints, and also because denser forms of housing are more expensive to build. Even with all the new apartments in town, we aren’t building enough to accommodate this many new people. We are still losing ground to demand.
Going to be a very interesting next decade in Portland town. We’ll see how many of us are still here by then.
Two years later the lot MLK and Alberta that the pdc gave to majestic realty remains ever so vacant… portland isn’t close being dense.
You’re right, Blabby. I hope we stick to our guns and build up, not outward, but either choice has a lot of downsides.
Time to re-consider those fees for demolishing an old house in favor of condos?
Those who consider the UGB a factor in the increasing rents in the high density areas of Portland proper are missing the mark with their concerns.
Land and improvements will be built at whatever price the market will pay. It is NOT bound by supply and demand. It is bound by location.
Those moving here are much less likely to desire a suburban location, which can be found in almost any metropolitan area in this country, but rather, the hipper, inner city parts which are the hot bed of current rent woes. This locational inflexibility will continue to fuel the rent hikes in Portland, rather than the increases in costs of housing elsewhere.
Bought my 1950’s home. I have people asking to buy it and tear it down for row houses every day. Fuck them. I want my old construction, spacious seasoned and nice home. Keep what made your city great new construction turns your city into a giant strip mall.
400,000 people aren’t going to *move* here over the next 20 years. There are going to be 400,000 new residents. Most of that growth will be babies who grow up here.
I’m super confused. I don’t live within the UGB. So, according to this article, I’m outside Portland’s “borders”. So why does my postal address say Portland? Why is my child in Portland Public Schools? Why do I have to keep sending tax money to the City of Portland? And why does Shelby keep misspelling borders as “boundary” in the article?
I mean, I’d be all for Portland increasing its borders, so I too could reap all the benefits of this great, shining metropolis! Like, you know, paved roads! Tri-Met routes! An occasional grocery store!
But best of all, maybe, just MAYBE, then Shelby and the rest of The Portland Mercury staff might actually recognize that me, and my fellow TOP*pers, actually exist. I mean, exist as human people, not just as The Matrix-style tax batteries for the never-ending needs of the urban core.
*The “Other” Portland
I’m sure none of those metro folks make money off of real estate.