What If Portland's Urban Growth Boundary Was Never Implemented?

The Actual History

In 1973, Oregon embarked on one of the most ambitious land-use planning experiments in American history. Under Republican Governor Tom McCall's leadership, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 100, which required every city and county in Oregon to develop comprehensive land-use plans that would meet statewide planning goals. The legislation also created the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to oversee this process and establish these statewide planning goals.

The most revolutionary of these goals—Goal 14—required all incorporated cities to establish urban growth boundaries (UGBs). These boundaries would contain urban development and protect farmland, forests, and open spaces from suburban sprawl. The Portland metropolitan area established its UGB in 1979, encompassing Portland and 24 surrounding cities across three counties, initially containing 234,000 acres.

The Portland UGB represented a clear demarcation between urban and rural land. Inside the boundary, urban development was encouraged at relatively higher densities. Outside the boundary, land was preserved primarily for agriculture, forestry, and very low-density residential development (typically one house per 80 acres of farmland or one per 160 acres of forest land).

Unlike arbitrary municipal boundaries, Portland's UGB was designed to be periodically reviewed and expanded. Oregon law initially required a review every five years to ensure a 20-year supply of developable land for housing and employment. In 2007, this changed to a review every six years. Between 1983 and 2023, the Portland UGB was expanded more than three dozen times, but these expansions were targeted and modest compared to the unfettered growth seen in other American metropolitan areas.

The implementation of the UGB coincided with the creation of Metro in 1979, the nation's only directly elected regional government, which took over management of the Portland region's UGB in 1986. This unique governance structure allowed for coordinated regional planning decisions that transcended individual municipal interests.

By the 2020s, the Portland UGB had fundamentally shaped the metropolitan area in ways distinct from most American cities. Portland developed with significantly higher densities than comparable cities, invested heavily in public transportation (including light rail, streetcars, and buses), preserved thousands of acres of nearby farmland, and maintained a relatively compact urban form. The city became internationally recognized as a model for sustainable urban development, with visitors from around the world studying its planning system.

However, the UGB also contributed to rising housing costs as demand for living in Portland increased while the supply of developable land remained constrained. This affordability crisis intensified debates about the boundary's size and the density of development within it. Oregon responded with additional legislation, including House Bill 2001 in 2019, which effectively ended single-family zoning statewide to allow for more housing options within the existing urban footprint.

Despite ongoing challenges and adjustments, Portland's urban growth boundary has remained intact for over four decades, fundamentally altering the trajectory of the region's development and establishing Oregon as a pioneer in growth management and land-use planning in the United States.

The Point of Divergence

What if Portland's Urban Growth Boundary was never implemented? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where Oregon's groundbreaking land-use planning system either failed to materialize or was significantly weakened in its crucial formative period.

Several plausible divergence points could have prevented the UGB from becoming reality:

Senate Bill 100 Fails in 1973: The most direct divergence would be the defeat of SB 100 in the Oregon Legislature. Despite Governor Tom McCall's strong advocacy, the bill passed by relatively narrow margins. In our alternate timeline, rural and development interests could have mounted stronger opposition, or key political figures might have withdrawn their support. Even a few votes changing in the state senate could have derailed the entire statewide planning program before it began.
Legal Challenge Succeeds in the Late 1970s: Even after SB 100 passed, the program faced significant legal challenges. In our timeline, the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the law in several key decisions. In an alternate scenario, the courts might have ruled differently, finding that the state's planning requirements constituted an unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation, effectively gutting the program before Portland established its UGB in 1979.
1976 Ballot Measure Repeals SB 100: In actual history, opponents of Oregon's land-use planning system placed a measure on the 1976 ballot to repeal SB 100, but voters rejected it. In our alternate timeline, this measure succeeds, capitalizing on property rights concerns and anti-government sentiment to overturn the statewide planning program before Portland's UGB was implemented.
1982 Recession Triggers Abandonment: The severe recession of the early 1980s hit Oregon particularly hard. In our alternate timeline, economic pressures could have led to the nascent UGB being abandoned shortly after implementation as policymakers prioritized immediate economic growth over long-term planning goals.

For this scenario, we'll focus on the first possibility: Senate Bill 100 narrowly fails in the Oregon Legislature in 1973, preventing the statewide planning system from being established and removing the legal requirement for Portland to adopt an urban growth boundary. Without this foundational legislation, the Portland region would have followed a development pattern more typical of other American metropolitan areas in the following decades.

Immediate Aftermath

Political Fallout (1973-1975)

The failure of Senate Bill 100 represents a significant political defeat for Governor Tom McCall, who had made land-use planning a centerpiece of his second term agenda. His famous 1973 statement about welcoming visitors but not new residents to Oregon ("Come visit us again and again. But for heaven's sake, don't come here to live") loses much of its policy backbone without a comprehensive planning system to manage growth.

McCall attempts to revive land-use legislation in different forms, but the momentum is lost. Environmental groups like 1000 Friends of Oregon, which in our timeline formed to defend SB 100, instead focus on piecemeal local initiatives and lawsuits to challenge the most egregious development proposals. Without the umbrella of state requirements, these efforts achieve only limited success.

The political coalition that nearly passed SB 100 fragments, with some lawmakers turning their attention to other environmental priorities like the bottle bill (which had passed in 1971) and public beach access. Conservative Democrats and Republicans who opposed SB 100 feel vindicated, strengthening development and property rights interests in subsequent legislative sessions.

Local Planning Divergence (1975-1980)

Without statewide requirements, individual municipalities in the Portland region pursue widely divergent planning approaches:

City of Portland: Under Mayor Neil Goldschmidt (1973-1979), Portland still attempts progressive urban policies, creating a more robust downtown plan and neighborhood association system. However, without the legal structure of the UGB, these efforts focus primarily within city limits rather than coordinating with suburban communities.
Suburban Communities: Municipalities like Beaverton, Gresham, and Tigard continue to approve low-density subdivisions and commercial developments with minimal coordination. Washington County, in particular, becomes a hotbed of development as tech companies like Tektronix and later Intel expand operations.
Clark County, Washington: The Vancouver area, which in our timeline was influenced by Portland's growth management despite being in another state, pursues even more aggressive development. The lack of growth constraints on the Oregon side removes any incentive for Washington to limit its own sprawl.

Transportation Shifts (1975-1985)

The failure of SB 100 has profound impacts on Portland's transportation system:

Mount Hood Freeway Proceeds: In our timeline, the cancellation of the controversial Mount Hood Freeway through Southeast Portland freed up federal funds that were redirected to build Portland's first light rail line. Without the comprehensive planning approach that SB 100 encouraged, the freeway project likely proceeds, cutting through established neighborhoods and reinforcing automobile dependency.
Transit Takes a Back Seat: The MAX light rail system, which broke ground in 1982 in our timeline, is significantly delayed or scaled back. Without coordinated land-use and transportation planning, the case for major transit investments weakens. Federal transportation dollars are directed primarily to highway expansion rather than transit alternatives.
Suburban Highway Expansion: Highways like US-26 (Sunset Highway), I-205, and I-5 are widened more aggressively as development spreads outward, creating a positive feedback loop of sprawl and transportation infrastructure that mimics the growth patterns of cities like Phoenix and Atlanta.

Early Environmental Consequences (1975-1985)

The absence of the UGB has immediate environmental impacts:

Farmland Conversion Accelerates: The fertile Tualatin Valley west of Portland, the Damascus area to the southeast, and the agricultural lands of Clackamas County begin converting to subdivisions at a much faster rate. By 1985, thousands of acres of prime farmland that were preserved in our timeline are instead developed into low-density housing and strip malls.
Forest Fragmentation: The forest interface around the metro area, particularly in the Cascade foothills near Sandy and the Coast Range near Forest Grove, experiences rapid parcelization as demand for rural homes and hobby farms grows without regulatory constraints.
Columbia River Gorge Development: Without the comprehensive approach to land preservation that eventually led to the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (created in 1986 in our timeline), development pressures in the Gorge intensify, with more vacation homes and tourism infrastructure altering its scenic character.

Long-term Impact

Urban Form and Development Patterns (1985-2025)

By 2025, the Portland metropolitan area in this alternate timeline bears little resemblance to the relatively compact region we know today:

Sprawling Development

Geographic Extent: Instead of the roughly 400 square miles contained within today's UGB, developed land spreads across more than 1,000 square miles, creating an almost continuous band of urbanization from Forest Grove to Sandy and from Woodland, Washington to Canby.
Density Patterns: Average residential density falls to approximately 2-3 units per acre (compared to 4-5 in our timeline), creating a development pattern more similar to Denver or Salt Lake City than the Portland we know. The population is roughly similar (around 2.5 million in the metro area), but spread across a much larger geographic area.
Leapfrog Development: Without growth boundaries, development frequently "leapfrogs" over less desirable parcels, creating inefficient service provision and fragmented natural areas. Formerly distinct communities like Sandy, Estacada, Canby, and North Plains effectively become bedroom communities absorbed into the Portland metropolitan area.

Housing Market Dynamics

Housing Affordability: Initially, the absence of land constraints keeps housing prices lower than in our timeline. From 1980-2000, Portland housing remains quite affordable relative to other West Coast cities. However, this advantage diminishes after 2000 as increased transportation costs, infrastructure challenges, and environmental degradation begin to offset the lower land costs.
Housing Diversity: Single-family homes on large lots dominate new construction from 1975-2010, with significantly less investment in condominiums, apartments, and townhomes. Housing options remain more limited, particularly for young people, elderly residents, and lower-income households.
Urban Renewal Challenges: Without the concentration of investment within a defined boundary, urban renewal efforts in Portland's central city and inner neighborhoods struggle to gain momentum. Areas like the Pearl District remain industrial longer, while neighborhoods like Alberta and Mississippi experience delayed revitalization.

Transportation Systems (1985-2025)

Portland's transportation system develops along radically different lines:

Automobile Dependency

Freeway Network: By 2025, the region has built approximately 35-50% more freeway lane-miles than in our timeline. In addition to the Mount Hood Freeway, the region constructs the Western Bypass through Washington County, the Sunrise Corridor in Clackamas County, and multiple additional highway lanes throughout the network.
Traffic Congestion: Despite (or because of) the expanded road network, by 2015 Portland ranks among the top 15 most congested metropolitan areas in the United States, similar to Atlanta or Houston. Average commute times reach 35-40 minutes, versus approximately 27 minutes in our timeline.
Vehicle Miles Traveled: The average resident drives approximately 27-30 miles per day, nearly 40% more than in our timeline, creating higher transportation costs, increased pollution, and greater infrastructure maintenance needs.

Public Transportation

Limited Transit Network: Instead of the comprehensive MAX light rail system with six lines, this alternate Portland has at most one or two limited rail corridors, with the first not opening until the late 1990s or early 2000s.
Bus Service: Bus service remains focused on peak commuting hours rather than developing into the frequent all-day network of our timeline. Lower density development makes effective bus service increasingly difficult to provide.
Transit Mode Share: Transit accounts for only 3-4% of commute trips (versus 12-15% in downtown-oriented commutes in our timeline), similar to patterns in Sunbelt cities like Phoenix or Dallas.

Environmental Outcomes (1985-2025)

The absence of the UGB creates cascading environmental consequences:

Natural Resource Loss

Agricultural Land Conversion: By 2025, the Portland region loses approximately 150,000-200,000 acres of farmland that was preserved in our timeline. The specialty nursery industry, berries, and vineyard sectors are particularly affected, with significant economic impacts on Oregon's agricultural economy.
Forest Fragmentation: Continuous forest canopy in the Cascade foothills and Coast Range gives way to a patchwork of development and smaller woodlots, affecting wildlife corridors and increasing fire risk in the wildland-urban interface.
Riparian Degradation: Streams and rivers throughout the region experience greater degradation as development encroaches on riparian areas with less coordinated protection. The Tualatin River, already prone to water quality problems, faces particularly severe challenges.

Environmental Performance

Air Quality: Without the combined benefit of more compact development and transit investment, air quality deteriorates compared to our timeline. The region experiences 15-20 days of unhealthy air annually by the 2020s, versus 5-10 in our timeline.
Carbon Emissions: Transportation-related carbon emissions per capita remain approximately 30-40% higher than in our timeline, undermining Oregon's efforts to address climate change.
Impervious Surface: The amount of impervious surface (pavement and buildings) increases by approximately 60-70% compared to our timeline, creating greater stormwater management challenges and urban heat island effects.

Regional Identity and Economy (1985-2025)

The absence of the UGB fundamentally alters Portland's development trajectory and national reputation:

Economic Development

Industry Focus: Without the reputation for sustainability and quality of life that Portland developed in our timeline, the city attracts different industries. The technology sector still grows, but with a character more similar to suburban office parks in other regions rather than the urban innovation districts that emerged in our timeline.
Tourism and Visitor Economy: Portland never develops the strong tourism brand it achieved in our timeline around sustainability, food culture, and outdoor access. The slogan "Keep Portland Weird" either never emerges or refers to different cultural characteristics.
Agricultural Economy: The Willamette Valley wine industry, which benefited from strict agricultural protections in our timeline, develops on a smaller scale. The region's farm-to-table food culture is significantly diminished as local agriculture retreats farther from the urban area.

Regional Governance

Metro Government Weakened: Without responsibility for the UGB, the Metropolitan Service District (which became Metro in our timeline) remains a much weaker entity focused primarily on solid waste and the Oregon Zoo. Regional coordination happens primarily through voluntary associations rather than formalized governance.
Infrastructure Challenges: By the 2010s, the dispersed development pattern creates significant infrastructure maintenance challenges, with insufficient tax base to maintain the expanded road network, water systems, and other services across the larger urbanized area.
Municipal Competition: Cities compete more aggressively for tax base through annexation and development incentives, creating greater disparities between wealthy and poor communities within the region.

National Policy Influence (1985-2025)

Portland's role in national urban policy conversations takes a much different direction:

Planning Influence: Without its signature UGB, Portland never becomes the model for sustainable urban development that it did in our timeline. The "Portland Model" of planning doesn't enter the national lexicon, and cities looking for sustainable development examples turn instead to European models or other American innovations.
Growth Management Legislation: The absence of Oregon's successful example weakens the case for growth management in other states. Washington's Growth Management Act (1990) and Maryland's Smart Growth initiatives (1997) either don't materialize or take significantly weaker forms, altering development patterns across the country.
Federal Demonstration Effect: Portland receives fewer federal grants and pilot projects related to sustainable development, limiting knowledge transfer to other regions and reducing Oregon's influence on national urban policy.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Jessica Chen, Professor of Urban Planning at the University of Washington, offers this perspective: "The Portland UGB represents one of the most successful applications of growth management in American planning history. In an alternate timeline without this boundary, we would likely see a Portland that resembles Denver or Salt Lake City in its development pattern—cities with progressive elements but fundamentally shaped by highway-oriented growth. The most significant loss would be in regional coordination. Without the forcing mechanism of the UGB, the individual municipalities would have had little incentive to work together on housing, transportation, and environmental challenges. By 2025, this alternate Portland would be grappling with the same fragmented governance that plagues most American metros, with far fewer tools to address regional problems."

Richard Martinez, Senior Fellow at the Property Rights Foundation and former developer, provides a contrasting view: "The absence of the UGB would have allowed market forces to more efficiently distribute growth throughout the region. Housing would likely be more affordable through the 1990s and 2000s, and communities would have developed more organically based on consumer preferences rather than regulatory dictates. While environmentalists lament the potential loss of farmland, the reality is that markets would have preserved the most productive agricultural areas while allowing more marginal lands to be converted to needed housing. The current Portland, constrained by its boundary, faces an affordability crisis that has undermined many of the equity goals that planners originally espoused. An alternate Portland might have developed more like a Nashville or Austin—dynamic, affordable, and still maintaining significant natural amenities through targeted conservation rather than blunt regulatory tools."

Dr. Maria Williams, Environmental Historian at Oregon State University, emphasizes the ecological dimensions: "The implementation of the UGB wasn't just about controlling human settlement patterns—it represented a fundamental shift in how we value the working landscapes around our cities. In a timeline without the UGB, the Willamette Valley's agricultural heritage would be significantly diminished. We'd still have agriculture, but it would be pushed farther from markets, increasing transportation costs and carbon emissions. The intimacy between urban and rural that characterizes the Portland region—the ability to be downtown and then in productive farmland within 15-20 minutes—would be lost. The ecological services provided by these working lands, from flood control to habitat, would be replaced by low-density development that serves neither urban nor rural purposes effectively. The UGB has never been perfect, but it succeeded in preserving a relationship between city and country that most American metros have lost."