Planning as a discipline deals with growth-related questions, such as where do new growth and new development occur within a neighbourhood, a city, or even a region. Across the globe, planning systems have developed different responses to the challenge of identifying locations suitable to absorb new population and employment growth. Within North America, the growth management discourse provides a context to understand how private and public sector actors are involved together in growing urbanised areas (Gale 1992; Carruthers 2002; Ben-Zadok 2005; Boarnet/McLaughlin/Carruthers 2011; Weitz 2012). Within Europe, the spatial planning discourse has provided a background for the debate of growth-related questions (Fürst 2010; Reimer/Getimis/Blotevogel 2014). Both discourses point to the multitude of approaches to managing the location of new growth.

The various approaches have evolved in response to unique cultural values manifested in planning systems, such as the German Raumplanung (spatial planning), the interactive planning system in British Columbia (Canada), or growth management in Washington State (USA; cf. Heinen 2020). In fact, planning systems across the globe have developed distinctive approaches to directing growth. Each planning system uses unique vocabulary and concepts do not easily translate for an international academic debate. A challenge for cross-country comparative planning policy research resides in thorough understanding of the meanings implied when pursuing compact development, transit-connected centres, or the protection of open spaces. This paper examines the spatial policies in the regions of Stuttgart, Vancouver, and Seattle in depth to build an understanding of differences in governing development patterns and directing growth in metropolitan regions.

The term metropolitan region is but one example of concepts that do not easily translate across boundaries. In this paper the term is used in reference to the definition by the U.S. Census: “The general concept of a metropolitan area (MA) is that of a core area containing a large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and social integration with that core” (U.S. Census 1994: 13-1). In line with this, the term metropolitan region is used to refer to a planning region. The term is not narrowly applied to refer to designated metropolitan regions in Europe but is applied more broadly.

Each of the three regions has adopted a Regional Growth Strategy (planning document) that promotes compact, complete, and transit-connected communities (regional vision). This regional vision is underwritten by similar but distinctly different spatial policies. Each case study showcases different approaches under senior-level government

Planning systems are established by senior-level government laws. For instance, in Germany federal and Länder (state) laws create the legal framework for regional and local planning. In the US, federal laws govern metropolitan planning and state laws shape local planning. In Canada, planning is primarily established by the Provinces with a variety of approaches (for a detailed debate on the approach to planning in the three case studies see Heinen 2022). Henceforth, the term “state level” is used to refer to Länder in Germany, Provinces in Canada, and States within the United States. The term “senior-level government” is used to include the federal and state level.

Spatial policies (raumstrukturelle Festlegungen) are rules-in-use to be applied when making decisions in metropolitan regions concerning infrastructure investments and areas for new residential, commercial, and industrial development and redevelopment. Spatial policies can be included in planning-enabling legislation and in regional growth strategies but could also take the form of scoring criteria related to prioritising infrastructure projects. Spatial policies actively shape development patterns in metropolitan regions. They are more general than land use designations or zoning policies. Spatial policies broadly guide the location (not parcel specific) of public investments and, depending on the planning system, can guide local decisions on permitting new development. Frequently, spatial policies are authorised within “planning enabling legislation” in growth managing states. The current growth management literature does not identify spatial policies as a distinctive subset of policies (see Bengston/Fletcher/Nelson 2004; Weitz 2012; Brombach/Jessen/Siedentop et al. 2017). This paper seeks to understand the types and nuances of spatial policies as they are applied in growth managing states and countries, taking the unique cultural and political contexts into consideration.

The paper starts by providing a background discussion on spatial policies and growth management. After a brief review of the research method, the spatial policies in the three case studies are presented: Metro Vancouver region, Stuttgart region and Puget Sound region. Each case study provides detailed examples for positive-allocative as well as protective spatial policies. The discussion compares the three approaches and concludes with consideration of how spatial policies inform growth management decisions.

In Western democracies, public and private sector entities are commonly involved in questions concerning new growth. Frequently, public sector actors provide public services in locations of new growth, and the private and public sector build new housing, office spaces, retail malls, or industrial parks.

Frequently, the public sector builds public housing to ensure affordability.

Governance is concerned with how multiple actors interact and interrelate their decision-making to address a common problem (Heinen/Arlati/Knieling 2022). In growth management and spatial planning, the common problem is frequently framed as ensuring that existing infrastructure is utilised, farmland and natural resources are preserved, and sufficient new growth is accommodated. Based on the planning legislation, a variety of actors might be charged with helping to address the common problem. By using a governance lens, one can identify the various responsibilities and take a close look at interdependencies among actors and interactions (Heinen/Arlati/Knieling 2022). Planning systems are governance arrangements that guide development patterns in a given geography. Within these governance arrangements, there is ample variation with regard to the role(s) that various levels of government assume and the mechanisms to integrate decisions across levels of government (Heinen 2022). In that sense, growth management in Washington State and British Columbia as well as spatial planning in Germany are specific examples of governance arrangements.

Growth management has been the keyword in North America to discuss questions of deliberate governmental involvement in the location of new growth in urbanised areas. Growth management is defined as “governmental actions […] to guide the location, quality, and timing of development” (Porter 1997: vii). Several large comparative studies in North America have demonstrated the variety of involvement of local, regional, and state levels of government in growth management (Gale 1992; Rothblatt 1994). In fact, much of the growth management literature assesses whether spatial policies, such as urban growth boundaries, actually achieve their desired results (Bollens 1992; Carruthers 2002; Weitz 2012). Oftentimes, individual policy mechanisms (regulatory techniques) such as urban growth boundaries are singled out and discussed regarding their effect on land markets and development patterns (Weitz 2012; Carruthers 2002; Ben-Zadok 2005; Pallagst 2007). Growth management research in the United States frequently takes place within the context of a heated political debate over local and state rights.

Spatial planning (Raumplanung) in Germany enjoys more of a status quo. The term spatial planning has been primarily used within the EU to discuss the variety of different planning systems found across the European Union (European Commission 1997: 23). Spatial planning tends to refer to comprehensive planning systems with integrated decision-making across levels and sectors of government (Haughton/Allmendinger/Counsell et al. 2010: 32–33). Many of the particularities differ across countries in Europe, so there is not a single definitive type of spatial planning (European Commission 1997). Spatial planning in general refers “to the methods used largely by the public sector to influence the future distribution of activities in space […]” (European Commission 1997: 24). The core of spatial planning as a discipline is concerned with how the two categories (settled areas and open spaces) are organised within metropolitan regions (Knieling/Kretschmann/Kunert et al. 2012: 21). Broadly speaking, rather than focusing on individual land uses or zoning, spatial planning as a discipline is concerned with broader development patterns in a region.

Both spatial planning and growth management work with spatial policies to steer development patterns. As indicated above, spatial policies are any public sector policy that is targeted at shaping the location of new growth. Better understanding the bandwidth of spatial policies and the nuances in combining and applying such policies can further advance the growth management and spatial planning discourses. In Germany, it is very common to find spatial policies in Statewide Development Plans and in Regional Plans. In North America, spatial policies are commonly found in local Comprehensive Plans but particularly in growth managing states, Regional Growth Strategies also contain spatial policies.

Spatial planning in Germany has routinely worked with a number of spatial policies. Rather than restrictive spatial policies such as urban growth boundaries, some German regions prefer to work with positive-allocative spatial policies (BMVBS 2012: 42). Positive-allocative policies affirm new growth for certain types of geographies by indicating which types of communities or locations are suitable to absorb new growth (BMVBS 2012: 42). For instance, transit-oriented development is one example of a positive-allocative approach that promotes new development near rapid transit. In other words, positive-allocative spatial policies encourage new growth for specific types of locations. In contrast, protective spatial policies restrict growth in open spaces or limit new development to areas already served by infrastructure. Even when it comes to restrictive policies, they are not one-size-fits-all. The governance perspective sheds light on a crucial difference between the case studies: in the Puget Sound region, the Urban Growth Area is determined by the counties; in British Columbia, the urban containment boundary is negotiated at the regional level; and in the Stuttgart region the developable land is determined by the local government and approved by the state. While one might initially think of spatial policies as regulatory approaches, they can also be combined with incentive-based approaches, the acquisition of land, or negotiation and communicative approaches (Bengston/Fletcher/Nelson 2004). Tab. 1 provides an overview of four types of spatial policies. Specific examples will be presented as part of the case study descriptions.

To better understand the variety of spatial policy configurations, this paper compares the spatial policies applied in three case studies: the Puget Sound region (Washington State, USA), the Metro Vancouver region (British Columbia, Canada), and the Stuttgart region (Baden-Württemberg, Germany). While all three regions share a vision that can broadly be summarised as compact and complete transit connected communities, the metropolitan planning organisations in each case study leverage different spatial policies, as authorised under senior-level government laws or by locally elected officials. In all three cases, directing growth is one of the purposes of planning across levels of government by law

British Columbia Local Government Act 2018, Section 428; Washington State Growth Management Act 36.70A.020; Raumordnungsgesetz vom 22. Dezember 2008, § 2.

Robinson (2016) describes studying variation across case studies as a basis for innovation. Spatial policies in each setting follow their own logics in terms of the levels of government applying and mapping the spatial policies; yet, they share important similarities in how they approach guiding development patterns for settled areas and open spaces. Through an iterative process of document analysis and 79 expert interviews, the specifics of each case study were studied in depth. Each planning system uses unique vocabulary and concepts that have different meanings for implementation. The iterative process of literature review, plan analysis, and interviews helped with theory formation (Robinson 2016). Working with three case studies had the benefit of avoiding the trap of observed binary positions when discussing two case studies; a third case study enables a wider frame of reference (see Gläser/Laudel 2010). A specific challenge with cross-cultural comparative case studies is to avoid utilising the categories of one culture to judge and describe another culture (Knieling/Othengrafen 2009).

The case studies were identified from a set of potential cases by looking at three criteria: firstly, at the state level there needed to be a planning law that authorised growth management at subsequent levels of government. A second criteria was that metropolitan regions needed to be growing. In order to be able to manage new growth, an assumption is that a region will be growing and not shrinking over the next decade. Shrinking regions have a different set of challenges than growing regions, specifically in regard to managing land markets; therefore, the focus here is on regions experiencing growth, which are thus in a position to quantitatively allocate growth across communities. Lastly, many urbanised areas contain more than one unit of local government. Therefore, the search emphasised cases in which the core cities had comparable population sizes but did not represent significantly more than a quarter of the urbanised area.

All three regions have in common that they are part of federal-type systems. Federal-type systems are characterised by hybrid forms of power sharing across multiple levels of government (European Commission 1997: 38; Brown 2012: 323). Usually, the constitution in a country assigns responsibilities and powers to each level of government and addresses questions on how much power is centralised and decentralised (Benz 2009). Being federally organised means that other levels of government have considerable decision-making powers in addition to the federal government (Brown 2012: 324; Peters/Pierre 2016: 128). Across all three regions, local governments make zoning decisions and permit new development. Yet, based on the unique planning laws, the spatial policies in the Regional Growth Strategy have different implications for communities. This is deeply related to governance questions over the responsibilities at various levels of government, the legally binding character of plans, and integrating mechanisms (Heinen 2022).

Prior to reviewing each case study in detail, two examples illustrate the difference in distributing responsibilities to various levels of government: For instance, the drawing of the urban containment boundary is a regional task in the Metro Vancouver region, a local task in the Stuttgart region, and a county task in the Puget Sound region. Furthermore, the designation of urban centers as a growth-affirming spatial policy is also designated to different levels of government: the urban centres are mapped at the local level in the Metro Vancouver region and the Puget Sound region. In contrast, in the Stuttgart region, the regional level introduced priority areas for high-density housing “Entwicklungsschwerpunkte” which are designated by the region. Lastly, community classifications as growth-affirming spatial policies are also created by different levels of government: Community classifications are jointly created by the state and region in Stuttgart whereas it is developed at the regional and county level in the Puget Sound region. To summarise for the three regions: they deviate by the extent that state law authorises spatial policies and other levels of government.

Subsequently, the governance arrangements and spatial policies in each region are presented in more depth.

Spatial policies are substantive rules-in-use which express desirable development patterns for a region. In each case study, multiple spatial policies have been applied to affirm growth for certain locations and limit growth in other locations. While there are similarities in the types of spatial policies across the case studies, a significant difference is the question of which levels of government authorise and apply spatial policies. All spatial policies in the Stuttgart region are authorised under federal and state laws. In contrast, in the Metro Vancouver and Puget Sound regions, only growth limiting policies are authorised under state laws, while the growth affirming policies are designed at the regional level. Besides the authorisation of spatial policies, the application (defining the categories, mapping the categories, and implementing them) is also organised differently. For the Stuttgart and Vancouver case studies, state legislation places the regional level at the centre of ensuring multi-level coordination. In contrast, in the Puget Sound region, state law creates the voluntary option for counties to work together on multicounty planning policies.

As shown in Fig. 1, there is a wide variety in how planning systems authorise and apply spatial policies. The three case studies presented here are all examples of multi-level growth management. In multi-level growth management, various levels of government have distinctly different roles in authorising and applying spatial policies. Hence, multi-level growth management is a type of planning system that is distinctly different from market-led planning systems and government-led planning systems. In multi-level growth management, governmental entities at various levels (local, county, region, state) play a clear role in structuring regional development patterns through spatial policies, but there is still ample opportunity for market actors to seize development opportunities. However, even within a multi-level growth-managing planning system, there is a wide variety of ways to structure the multi-level interactions (Heinen 2022). Keeping this in mind is particularly relevant when comparing the impact of spatial policies on development patterns, as is crucial for plan evaluation research.

Underpinning the use of spatial policies is a question over the planning culture and the constitutional legality of interventions in land markets by governmental actors. Cultural values are generally accepted within a society (Knieling/Othengrafen 2009), by a particular group, or in a particular setting (Geertz 1992). Cultural and societal values in planning may include, for instance, attitudes towards acceptable government intervention in land markets, appropriate senior level involvement in local decisions, the extent of administrative discretion, and the acceptability of a “common good” (Hardinghaus 2004: 149). Certainly, of the three case studies, the German nested planning system intervenes the most in land markets by restricting development of open spaces and directing growth to certain communities. The community classification creates clear winners and losers among the municipalities. Culturally, this is done in an effort to ensure that tax money is spent prudently and new development is prioritised in locations that have already seen the most public investment in infrastructure (values). The public good is generally prioritised over individual property rights, however, there is still ample protection for property owners to ensure just compensation and to prohibit takings. In the Metro Vancouver region, there is also a strong sense culturally for the value of agricultural land, ecologically sensitive areas, and resource lands. Therefore, interventions in the land markets by senior-level government seem warranted in the aligned planning system (Heinen 2022). In contrast, the tolerance for intervening in land markets is much lower across the United States (see Kelly 1993: 767 for a detailed discussion of legal issues with growth management in the United States). Even in a growth managing state like Washington State, King County still felt the need to purchase land protected by the urban containment boundary. Rather than relying on regulation (designation of the urban growth areas), a financial incentive was created for property owners. Furthermore, interventions by senior-level government are not as accepted in Washington State, hence an overlapping planning system ensures plan consistency (Heinen 2022).

The paper builds an appreciation for the role of various levels of government in authorising and applying spatial policies. Across the case studies, the mix of spatial policies allows for an affirmative direction of growth to differently sized locations. Metro Vancouver can direct growth to urban centres, Verband Region Stuttgart can allocate growth to community types and preferred locations for higher density housing, and Puget Sound Regional Council, together with its counties, can contain growth within the urban growth area. Nevertheless, in all three case studies, local governments are the actual implementing entities that make decisions on building permits and zoning. However, these local decisions are shaped by spatial policies. In all three regions, carefully designed integrating mechanisms ensure coordination across levels of government in the application of spatial policies to local decision-making.

It cannot be stressed enough that there are distinctly different functions between levels of government in authorising and applying (designing categories or quantities, monitoring and mapping, and implementing) spatial policies. Further research might compare the reasons for and outcomes of various configurations of responsibilities across levels of government. Investigation of the performance of spatial policies depending on the responsibilities allocated to different levels of government would also be of interest. Additionally, research on planning culture might explore the assumptions and cultural values that have shaped the allocation of responsibilities across levels of government. A challenge for comparative research is to find the appropriate “level” of analysis: comparative research may focus on regional planning documents while assessing the state and federal planning legislations as well as the implications for local governments. It could also look at how common problems and conflicts in spatial planning and growth management are addressed and resolved in a specific planning system. Starting from a similar conflict has the benefit of being able to “frame” the case studies as different responses to these problems that have evolved from the unique rules-in-use in a specific planning system.

Particularly within North America, urban containment boundaries are frequently critiqued because they tend to increase housing prices within the urbanised area (limiting land supply with increasing demand from a growing region will raise prices if permissible densities are not increased at the same time). Therefore, a crucial task for the regional and local level seems to be combining growth limiting policies with growth affirming policies. By affirming growth for certain locations within the urbanised area, while being aware of the problems of market interventions and unintended side-effects, redevelopment at higher densities in these locations can be encouraged and subsequently alleviate the pressure on the housing market because the supply will also increase. Combining qualitative and quantitative growth affirming policies can pre-structure regional development patterns without needing to specify exact land uses. However, these types of deliberations are political in nature and require dialogue within a region.

This paper has not addressed the performance of spatial policies but has introduced a typology that can be utilised for future cross-country comparative research. It should be noted that population and job growth within metropolitan regions cannot be attributed to spatial policies as other factors such as economic development, migration patterns, and household preferences play a role (Brombach/Jessen/Siedentop et al. 2017). Nevertheless, spatial policies can influence the location of new development during a building boom if they are embedded in multi-level growth management. Determining the location of new growth in metropolitan regions remains a sensitive political question in regions across the globe. This paper has explored nuances in spatial policies for growth managing states which can help in conceptualising growth policies aiming to achieve more sustainable land use in growing metropolitan regions to counterbalance the negative externalities of sprawl.