farm land

BUSINESSAS USUAL

Protect Farmland, Parks, and Natural Areas

Development of farmland/open space vs. preservation and enhancement of farmland/open space

I think we should open up all our farmland and open space

for future development

I think we should preserve and enhance ALL the farmland and open space in our region

WHERE DO OURSCENARIOSFALL?

0% 100%10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

New jobs and homes would continue to eat up rural land, while homes in first-ring suburbs as well as central cities would be abandoned.Exurban housing growth puts pressure on farmers who are tempted to sell land that is worth more for housing than for crops.

New homes in outlying areas can also consume natural lands that provide valuable “environmental services.”

Large homes with long commutes use more energy than others.

Percent of Open Space Conserved from Development 33%

Current and Potential Prime Farmland Lost to Development (Acres)

58,093

Acres of Development on Environmentally-Sensitive Areas 71,411

XDeveloped by 2050

Floodplains & Stream BuffersWetlandsForestlandsPrime Farmland

SPRAWLINGSMARTER






0% 100%10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%


A suburban “smart growth” strategy would protect a great deal of undeveloped land even as it provided suburban housing choices on “greenfield” sites.Suburban housing in more compact patterns would help save farmland and environmentally-sensitive lands like wetlands and stream corridors.

“Smart growth” in the suburbs would also help conserve energy in heating, cooling and transportation.

Still, this scenario preserves less land than “villages” or “cities.”

Percent of Open Space Conserved from Development

79%


12,548


Developed by 2050


A REGIONOF VILLAGES

Focusing new housing and job growth on both villages and urban centers would protect most of prime farmland, natural areas and open space.The “Region of Villages” scenario is very similar to the “Back to the Cities” scenario in how much land they preserve from development.

This scenario conserves somewhat less energy per household than the city-centered strategy because it involves longer commutes for people who live in villages but work in the city.


84%


4,591


XDeveloped by 2050





0% 100%10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%




BACK TO THE CITY




0% 100%10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%


Concentrating new development in central cities and older suburbs would preserve the lion’s share of rural land for farming and “environmental services.”

A “Back to the Cities” strategy would put the least pressure on farmland and open space in rural areas.

Development practices that conserve rural lands and focus development in urban centers are

also the most energy efficient.


84%


5,311


XDeveloped by 2050


