There are three potential choices for directing future growth in the County. 

• Trends Extended 
• 1994 Comprehensive Plan: Urban Service Boundary 
• Town and Country Model

The existing Richland County Growth Concept is, in reality, not a concept but a “mapping” of the latest development ring that surrounds the city. See Figure 5-1. History shows that with this approach continued growth would simply result in an expansion of the urban ring until all of Richland County is classified Urban. The mapping technique simply designates areas as urban or rural and lacks the level of detail necessary for quality community planning. 

The stakeholders have told the team they do not accept the possibility of uncontrolled growth. Not only does it not meet the objectives for the preservation of open space, and a better pattern of growth; it consumes land at an unacceptable rate over the next 20 years. It consumes too much land and does so especially in already crowded corridors such as the Northeast. 

5.2 1994 Comprehensive Plan: Urban Service Boundary Approach  

In this concept, the total amount of growth is reduced by concentrating more in the urbanized area, and by restricting the growth in the rural fringes of the county. While the total rate of urbanization is reduced in this approach and the location of growth is more directed, the Urban Service Boundary, in the opinion of the planning team, creates an artificial boundary between urban and rural areas. It does forever preserve the areas outside the boundary, but it does not necessarily mean that growth inside the boundary will happen in a good way. There is no provision for the preservation of open space within the boundary, and in the long run, the political and zoning battles occur at the boundary. Those outside the boundary want to be included and will often fight to extend the boundary, while those inside will battle against the extension to preserve the edge. 

5.3 Town and Country Model 

The planning team recommends an approach we term “Town and Country”. See Figure 5-2. The model proposes a balance of future land development and open space preservation. It is both pro-growth and pro-preservation. With coordinated planning, the projected residential and employment growth can be accommodated while at the same time preserving farmland and open space. This approach offers a variety of lifestyle options: urban center mixed-use neighborhoods, urban villages, suburban villages and neighborhoods and freestanding hamlets and villages in rural landscapes. The recommendations in this report are based on this approach. It should be noted that the projected growth and its allocation between corridors are the same as in the Burchell Report. The principal difference is in the strategies for locating growth within the corridors.