Infill and Greenfield Development Are Necessary for Sustainable Growth in Bellingham

Bellingham faces a pressing need to accommodate housing growth over the next 20 years in a way that is both sustainable and inclusive. As the city’s population climbs and housing shortages intensify, local leaders are debating how best to manage development and many emphasize infill development – building within existing urban areas – as the environmentally sound and cost-effective choice. Indeed, Bellingham’s current comprehensive plan leans heavily on infill and urban densification, noting that the expansion of Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundaries was not deemed necessary to meet past growth targets. This inward-focused strategy aligns with Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA) by directing growth into urban areas and fostering vibrant, compact neighborhoods.

However, an infill-only approach is no longer sufficient on its own. Housing demand is outpacing what infill projects alone can realistically deliver, and an exclusive focus on building “up, not out” has limitations in speed and scale. Without additional solutions, people seeking affordable homes will be forced to move to surrounding cities or into unincorporated areas of the county which causes sprawl and undermines regional growth and climate goals.

This article advocates for a balanced housing growth strategy – one that continues to reap the benefits of infill development but also strategically incorporates responsible greenfield development. By embracing a dual approach, the City of Bellingham can meet its responsibility to provide housing for a growing population while preserving quality of life and sustainability. The discussion below outlines the merits of infill, the limitations that make infill alone insufficient, and why carefully planned greenfield projects are also needed.

Benefits of Infill Development

Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA) and Whatcom County’s planning policies both encourage urban infill to meet housing needs and curb sprawl. Infill helps preserve open space and rural land by channeling growth into already-developed areas. It also supports Bellingham’s climate and transportation goals making it easier for people to walk, bike, or use transit, reducing the reliance on vehicles and thereby reducing carbon emissions.

Financially, infill is typically the most budget-friendly way to accommodate growth since roads, sewer, water lines, transit infrastructure is in place — making new housing development less expensive. Because of this, infill development ideally allows the city to invest its available resources into maintaining and improving existing neighborhoods.

The product of infill can already be seen throughout Bellingham. According to 2020 data, about 49% of Bellingham’s housing stock is multi-family, and that share is expected to increase this year as almost 500 new multi-family units begin development in early 2025. In addition to traditional multi-family housing, the City’s Infill Housing Toolkit includes missing middle housing such as cottages, duplexes, triplexes, courtyard homes, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and other compact forms of housing to encourage “more efficient use of the remaining developable land.” Missing middle housing fits within traditional single-family neighborhood scale but provides more housing on the same footprint. Now with Washington’s passing of HB 1110, Bellingham has a goal to upzone all single-family neighborhoods to increase housing density across the city by encouraging missing middle housing development.

Infill development offers clear environmental and fiscal advantages. It preserves open space, reduces sprawl and car dependence, and stretches public dollars further by leveraging existing resources. It also supports community goals to create more vibrant, livable neighborhoods and complies with state directives to focus growth in urban centers​. However, a growing city cannot rely on infill alone to deliver the housing stock it needs to promote a vibrant community.

Limitations of Relying on Infill Alone

As we have previously reported, the city’s population has grown and housing production has not kept pace. There is a dire need for housing, but even with aggressive infill policies in place, there are not enough homes. Bellingham’s vacancy rates are approximately 3% for rentals, 1% for homeowners, and a composite rate of 2.5% (a healthy vacancy rate is considered to be between 5% and 7%). As a result, the shortage of housing has increased housing costs. At the end of 2024 the median sale price of a home in the city was reported to be $765,000. Limited housing supply and high housing costs are destabilizing, causing economic and social instability for many Bellingham residents, especially cost-burdened and low-income renters who are most vulnerable to becoming displaced or homeless as their rent increases.

While infill is beneficial, treating it as a standalone solution comes with challenges and limitations. One of the main challenges is that infill development alone cannot deliver new housing at the scale or speed required to alleviate Bellingham’s housing shortage. Construction in established areas can only ramp up so fast – often not fast enough to catch up with pent-up demand. Plus, infill projects tend to be smaller in scale (a few dozen units here, a backyard ADU there) which means adding thousands of units through infill alone could take many years and to meet the need.

Site availability is one constraint to infill development. Bellingham’s remaining vacant or underused lots are finite, and assembling parcels for larger infill projects can be difficult. Developers often must deal with fragmented ownership, existing older structures, or challenging lot shapes. This adds complexity, time, and cost to infill projects, which can deter development or make projects financially unfeasible. By contrast, building on open land can happen much more swiftly – a single owner of a large property can plan hundreds of homes at once, without needing to demolish or retrofit existing structures, or disrupt the existing neighborhood and traffic flow.

Community resistance to infill, especially to high-density and tall buildings in established neighborhoods, is another constraint. Bellingham residents value the character of their neighborhoods, and infill proposals spark concerns about increased traffic, parking shortages, strain on shared resources like parks, schools and existing infrastructure, and the change in the neighborhood aesthetic. The City’s 2016 comprehensive plan notes that many residents are “concerned about the potential impacts of infill projects on existing neighborhoods,” even as others recognize that well-designed infill helps preserve rural lands and support transit. Proposals to build mid-rise or high-rise apartments can meet pushback from neighbors worried about view obstruction or historic character, leading to political pressure that can scale down or delay projects. Bellingham has relatively few high-rise buildings, and community tolerance for significantly increased heights outside the downtown core remains low. This resistance indicates that depending on high-rise infill opportunities to create the number of housing units necessary to support two decades of population growth will be a challenge.

Moreover, zoning and utilization patterns in some infill areas have not achieved the intended densities. A city analysis in 2020 found that many areas zoned for multi-family housing had been developed predominantly with lower-density uses like single-family homes, well below the density envisioned in the comprehensive plan. In response, the City Council directed staff to “leave no stone unturned” in addressing the housing crisis and considered code changes to unlock these areas’ capacity. In March 2020 the Council even enacted an emergency moratorium on new low-density single-family development in multi-family zones to preserve the lands for higher-density projects. These actions underscore a key point: simply designating land for infill or higher density doesn’t guarantee it will be built out as such. Market preferences, developer choices, and community opposition can result in underutilization of zoned capacity. Bellingham’s experience shows that strong policy interventions (like the infill toolkit, density bonuses, or moratoria on low-density uses) are needed – but even then, there are limits to how quickly policies translate into physical housing.

Finally, an infill-only approach to housing development will not provide the full range of housing types needed for an inclusive and family-friendly city. Infill development in Bellingham has produced many apartments ideal for students, singles, and smaller households. However, larger households or those desiring a traditional yard (such as many families with children) have limited options. The Growth Management Act requires cities to provide housing for all economic segments and a range of housing types​. That means Bellingham must have more than studios, 1-bedroom apartments and ADUs. It also needs moderately priced single-family attached and detached 2 and 3-bedroom homes suitable for those wanting a family and infill will fall short on delivering this type of housing. Most neighborhoods are largely built out and it’s unlikely to see an increase in new single-family homes in these areas. Further, the passing of HB 1110 incentivizes property owners with extra lots or those living outside of the city to build middle housing as way to generate rental income— which lends itself to an entirely different conversation about the concentration of wealth and growing wealth inequality within the city.

The bottom line is middle-income families who are priced out or space-constrained will continue moving to surrounding cities and unincorporated areas of Whatcom County where there is more space and it is more affordable to buy a home and raise their families. In the last 10 years, as home prices in the Bellingham have increased, growth in unincorporated areas of the county also increased (by 19%!) and the surrounding cities like Lynden and Ferndale saw more growth than they initially planned for. Plainly, if infill is the sole strategy, housing diversity within Bellingham will continue to suffer— the city has plenty of small apartments but it lacks affordable family-sized and entry-level homes.

Bellingham’s heavy emphasis on infill, while well-intentioned and beneficial, faces real-world hurdles: a limited pool of infill sites, expensive infrastructure upgrades, slower housing development, community pushback on density, and gaps in housing types and housing affordability. These limitations suggest that infill development, by itself, will not keep pace with Bellingham’s housing needs over the next 20 years. To avoid exacerbating the housing crisis and facilitating sprawl, the city must supplement infill with greenfield development.

Why Greenfield Development is Also Needed

The state’s mandate to provide housing for all economic segments effectively requires the city to use every tool available – infill and greenfield alike – to create opportunities for housing across the spectrum. Greenfield development refers to building on previously undeveloped land in designated expansion areas. The key is to direct such development to strategic locations with the ability to meet housing demand swiftly and sustainably to align with long-term plans, rather than opening the door to unchecked sprawl. In Bellingham’s context, the north Bellingham UGA Reserve is the ideal area for this type of planned growth.

The land has been reserved for growth since the early 2000s as it is not forested or used for agricultural purposes. Major roads have been extended through the area, utilities have been stubbed in (or are nearby), and residential and commercial development is underway. Bellingham needs around 900 new homes per year over the next 20 years to meet demand and north Bellingham can supply a large percentage of these homes while meeting the GMA requirements to supply diverse housing types affordable to all incomes. Because it is a relatively newer area compared to other established Bellingham neighborhoods like Fairhaven or York, the land can easily support a range of housing options from apartments and townhomes to single-family homes, yielding hundreds of units of diverse housing within a single project. Such a development can progress in parallel (dozens of houses under construction at once), whereas infill projects are usually sequential and dispersed. The economies of scale in greenfield sites such as north Bellingham’s UGA Reserve also tend to make construction more cost-efficient, translating to more affordable sale or rental prices for residents. In Bellingham’s tight housing market, a significant infusion of new supply via greenfield development will tend to help moderate price increases and provide relief to buyers and renters without forcing them out of the city for more affordable housing options.

A balanced growth approach ensures that Bellingham offers choices for different lifestyles and income levels: compact apartments and cottages in the core and more spacious homes and townhomes in newly developed areas. This variety is crucial for inclusive growth; it means young families, blue-collar workers, and middle-income households will have a chance to find suitable housing within city limits instead of having to live outside of Bellingham and commute to the city for work or recreation.

Critically, supporting greenfield development in targeted areas can prevent the very outcome that all stakeholders want to avoid: sprawl and the displacement of growth to unincorporated or undeveloped areas. If Bellingham does not plan for enough housing, people will still come and they will live wherever they can find a home. Insufficient urban housing forces development pressure onto rural lands. In a worst-case scenario, a lack of buildable land in Bellingham will push development into agricultural lands and truly rural parts of the county – essentially leapfrogging the urban growth boundary. This undermines regional planning efforts and results in exactly the kind of sprawl the GMA was designed to prevent. By proactively opening up areas like north Bellingham's UGA Reserve for urban-density housing, Bellingham will continue to direct growth within the city— and importantly doing this will help the city increase its tax base.

The fact that north Bellingham already hosts major employers, educational institutions, and shopping centers further means that new housing would be near services and jobs. In effect, if done thoughtfully, greenfield development can mirror many of the advantages of infill: relatively compact, connected, and efficiently served development.

It is also worth noting that Bellingham’s own stance on growth needs to adjust to new realities. The city’s current comprehensive plan (adopted in 2016) assumed that no UGA expansions were needed through 2036​, yet housing affordability has worsened and actual growth pressures are surpassing what infill has been able to deliver. Local officials have begun to acknowledge this. Recent city initiatives (like the 2021 “Achieving Intended Densities” zoning changes and the 2022 Housing Action Plan discussions) show an urgency to remove barriers to housing construction inside city limits. Similarly, Whatcom County’s planners and Council have a stake in ensuring Bellingham can absorb a large share of regional growth, because otherwise the county faces more pressure to allow development in unincorporated areas. Supporting carefully chosen greenfield projects now – particularly on land that is already adjacent to city services –stays true to the spirit of growth management. It is far preferable for the city to explicitly plan for a new neighborhood in north Bellingham than to passively watch growth spill into scattered county parcels. In short, greenfield development, done in the right place and manner, is not sprawl – it is planned urban growth.

Infill and Greenfield Development Is A Sustainable Growth Strategy

To achieve a sustainable and inclusive growth trajectory, the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County could implement a set of balanced policies that support both infill and greenfield development. Below are key recommendations for consideration:

1. Update Bellingham’s comprehensive plan to explicitly embrace a combined infill-and-greenfield growth strategy. The plan’s goals and narratives should reflect that compact infill development remains the priority, and that strategically located greenfield development will be utilized to meet housing and employment demand. This policy shift can be framed as a refinement of the existing plan, recognizing new housing realities while still upholding growth management principles. Embedding this in official policy will help build consensus that a balanced approach is the new norm. 

   
   

2. Proactively facilitating development in north Bellingham involves officially making the UGA Reserve part of Bellingham’s urban growth area. The city should work closely with developers already active in the Cordata area, coordinating timelines and requirements so that projects can move quickly once approved. This sends a strong signal that Bellingham is open for business.

   
   

3. The city should update its capital facilities plan to include the needs of these growth areas, ensuring that roads, transit service, schools, and emergency services will expand in step with development. Impact fees and developer contributions should be calibrated so that those who build the new homes help pay for the necessary infrastructure to protect the city’s finances.

   
   

4. In implementing both infill and greenfield development, keep the end goal of sustainable, inclusive growth at the forefront. This means continuing to pursue policies that ensure a share of new housing is affordable to lower- and middle-income residents. By spreading affordable housing across both infill and greenfield sites, the city avoids socio-economic segregation and makes sure new neighborhoods are inclusive from the start. Additionally, housing growth should be matched with job growth and transit so that new residents have access to employment and transportation options. An inclusive approach echoes the GMA’s call for meeting housing needs of all segments of the population. It also builds broader public support for growth if people see that it leads to tangible community benefits – not just more houses, but more attainable houses, better transit, parks, and thriving mixed-income communities.

   
   

By considering and integrating the above measures, Bellingham can create a robust framework for balanced growth. The recommendations seek to marry the strengths of infill (efficient use of land, urban vitality) with the strengths of greenfield development (speed, scale, and housing variety) while mitigating the weaknesses of each. This balanced strategy is essential for Bellingham to remain a livable, vibrant city in the face of population growth and housing demand. The urgency of the housing crisis means that time is of the essence – waiting for infill alone to catch up is no longer a viable option. Likewise, allowing uncontrolled growth betrays the city’s environmental values. The prudent path lies in supporting both approaches in a deliberate, well-planned manner.

To conclude, bold, coordinated action will help Bellingham meet its housing needs while upholding the qualities that make the city such a special place to live. A blended growth strategy acknowledges that infill development remains crucial and that targeted greenfield projects can significantly bolster housing supply without sacrificing environmental and fiscal principles. This balanced approach will prevent sprawl and maintain the region’s commitment to vibrant, inclusive communities. The challenge now is to act with urgency and creativity, leveraging every tool to turn this vision into reality.

About

Housing for Bellingham is a community resource that works to inform the public about the processes and terminology associated with housing to encourage greater public input for housing and land-use planning policies.