ABSTRACT
Urban containment may increase the likelihood that much of the non-residential development to come will result in the rehabilitation or replacement of existing structures. This may occur when development options in the suburban fringe and exurban areas are limited, thus stimulating infill and redevelopment of the mostly built landscape within a containment boundary. The alternative is new development farther out at higher environmental and social cost and likely higher long-term economic and fiscal cost as well combined with depreciating physical and social investment where development already exists. Social integration may also be facilitated by urban containment. Combined with enforceable state housing element mandates in local planning, strong containment appears to accelerate the pace of Anglo/African-American desegregation relative to weak containment and non-containment. Urban containment may also lead to higher-quality neighborhoods and perhaps as a consequence, higher-valued housing not necessarily at the expense of affordable rental housing supply.
