When cities pass zoning rules (as Missoula, Portland, and many Portland suburbs have done) mandating minimum-density zoning — so that people are forced to either build high-density housing in existing low-density neighborhoods or build nothing at all — libertarians lead the charge against such rules. But urban planners have managed to achieve the same result, and gain the support of some who consider themselves libertarian, by:
- Drawing an urban-growth boundary or passing similar policies forbidding development outside the existing urban footprint;
- Waiting a few years for the resulting supply shorting to push up housing prices;
- Blaming high housing prices on residents of single-family neighborhoods who object to densification of their neighborhoods;
- Proposing a law or ordinance that effectively eliminates zoning in those single-family neighborhoods.
Thus, we have a writer for Reason magazine supporting a law that would eliminate much of the zoning in San Francisco and other unaffordable California cities. Another Reason writer endorses a new zoning ordinance in Minneapolis that allows multifamily housing in single-family neighborhoods. The Mercatus Center blames high housing prices on single-family zoning as does a report from the Cato Institute.
Yet the reality is that every major American city except Houston has single-family zoning, but only a few are unaffordable — and those few all use urban-growth boundaries or otherwise restrict development of rural lands outside the existing urban areas. Yes, regions with such restrictions also have single-family zoning, but blaming high housing prices on single-family zoning is like saying that, because people would get sick eating rat poison and smoking marijuana, therefore marijuana smoking should be illegal.
The self-described free-market advocates who support densification have apparently forgotten that the housing markets in unaffordable regions are completely distorted by the urban-growth restrictions. I’ve heard one of the leading free-market advocates of densification claim that the San Francisco Bay Area has run out of land for development and therefore has to densify, when in fact only 17 percent of the land in the nine-county area has been urbanized — a number that isn’t going to change thanks to California’s immovable growth boundaries.
The Acai berry certainly qualifies as viagra cialis india https://regencygrandenursing.com/product4135.html being a super antioxidant and if you are able to take just a bite of it your body would be able to stabilize the amount of free radicals present within and that in turn will help to prevent possible damage that would otherwise have been caused by free radicals and which could have taken the form of heart diseases These are a few health problems require prescription. Men will have his partner’s eyes looking at him with a lot of questions and he will not have answer for any of her questions as it is a health issue that scatters a man completely. buy generic cialis As we all are completely aware that the generika viagra cialis erections are limp or flaccid in nature. All the medicine production companies can pharmacy on line viagra produce the medicine with Sildenafil citrate with their own brand names. One-third of homes built in the United States today are multifamily, up from one-fifth ten years ago. This isn’t a response to market demand: The vast majority of Americans, including Millennials, still aspire to live in single-family homes. Instead, the growth of multifamily is a response to various growth restrictions that have made it nearly impossible to build single-family homes in many urban areas.
One of the historic objections to the suburbs is that all of the homes looked alike (which was really true only in the first Levittown). Ironically, people have begun to notice that the Jane-Jacobs-inspired multifamily housing being built to day all tends to look alike: “bland, boxy apartment” buildings that some have labeled “McUrbanism.” Such buildings cost considerably more per square foot than single-family homes, so are only “affordable” because each housing unit is much smaller.
This the America urban planners want to build in the future: bland little apartments and condos that in many cities will be more expensive than a large, single-family home would be in the absence of growth restrictions. It is sad that some libertarians have fallen for this scheme.
Portland is now proposing to weaken or eliminate zoning in single-family neighborhoods throughout the city to make housing “more affordable.” Fortunately, free-market advocates in the Portland area still remember that housing there is only really expensive because of the growth boundary, not because of zoning within the boundary.
Minneapolis and Austin have virtually the same median home-price-to-household-income ratio: 3.5. Obviously Austin doesn’t have a growth boundary – they’re illegal in Texas. I’m not sure Minneapolis does have a boundary, but you seem to blame the ‘unaffordability’ of Minneapolis on restrictions to greenfield development (whatever those restrictions may be).
So what is your point? That 3.5 is already affordable and cities like Austin and Minneapolis shouldn’t aim to do better? That one shouldn’t eliminate single-family zoning until and unless growth boundaries have been lifted? That increasing housing supply will not makes prices lower than they’d otherwise have been until and unless you also eliminate boundaries? (If your point is the last, how come no economist has verified this phenomenon? It would the biggest exception to the law of supply and demand yet documented)
I’m not an expert in US urbanism, but the ‘boundary’ argument seems to fall flat in many cities. For instance, looking at a map of Los Angeles and its suburbs it’s darn hard to see where the growth ‘boundary’ is. Could you be more specific?
I’m sure if the California Legislature proposed to ban urban growth boundaries that the Libertarians in question would support that law too. But that isn’t on the docket. They have to like or dislike these proposals as they are given the rules as they are.
Behindyou,
The city of Austin has an anti-growth policy that has limited new home construction, driving up prices within the city. Most of its suburbs do not and they remain very affordable.
Minneapolis’ urban-service boundary isn’t as restrictive as the growth boundaries in Pacific Coast states so its housing is only marginally unaffordable. It is a bit strange that a city that is only marginally unaffordable would be the first to relax zoning, but not everything is perfectly predictable.
LoneSnark,
Yes, that is the excuse some of them use (though others don’t even seem to be aware of urban-growth restrictions). The problem is that we have seen too many “partial deregulations” blow up because they were incomplete. Just how is forcing people to live in high-density housing that they would not choose in a true free market a positive outcome?
I’m not an expert in US urbanism, but the ‘boundary’ argument seems to fall flat in many cities. For instance, looking at a map of Los Angeles and its suburbs it’s darn hard to see where the growth ‘boundary’ is. Could you be more specific?
San Francisco Bay
Boulder
Pretty clear urban growth boundaries in two of the least affordable housing markets in the US.
I agree, this particular partial-deregulation is likely to “blow-up” as un-planned density comes to areas without the infrastructure built to handle it (Since most of the new residents are going to drive anyways). But the housing shortages are very real, and the locals refuse to de-regulate. It doesn’t feel to be the case that if only things got bad enough local governments would relent. As such, while forcing people to live in high-density housing they’d rather not live in is not ideal, it is better than those households having nowhere to live.
But the housing shortages are very real, and the locals refuse to de-regulate.
Are you suggesting that local government decisions be overridden by state or federal action? If that’s the case then I see an even stronger case for those authorities to gut existing open space regulations put in place by local governments instead of destroying existing neighborhoods with increased density zoning.
A third option is to do nothing and encourage people to move to states and metro areas with a combination of high employment and low housing prices, as people have been doing for the past 15 years.
“Many apartments need to be built” says the planner living in a suburban single-family home.
The Bay area doesn’t need a urban growth boundary, it has one already, it’s called the Ocean. The consequence of being a peninsula. Unless they start building artificial islands which I would support, the only thing for them to do is move south.
”
It is a bit strange that a city that is only marginally unaffordable would be the first to relax zoning, but not everything is perfectly predictable.
” ~antiplanner
I can see how it would feel odd in the sense that $ isn’t an obvious driver.
From the people I know, it happened because of a lot of hard work, dedication and recognition that while housing in MPLStown is very affordable for the average income, for those on low end of the income spectrum, it’s quite the opposite. They’ve been working for years to build support.
I think this last round of elections at the city level helped a lot. They built the plan and took advantage of the changing politicians in city hall.
They also believe it’s impact is far beyond money. That the change is need to improve things like climate resilience. Those things are a great sell in a city that regularly has a few open alt-left city council members .
I would be curious as to what else can be done? Sure, sometimes reforms can do more harm than good. Like when Cali – where it’s essentially illegal to produce energy – decided to tear out some pricing regulations. But I’m no so sure the MPLS plan is that. Does someone see something where it’s squeezing in the wrong way? Or letting go in a way where things will go crazy?
IMHO I think of it as the ACA ( aka Obamacare ). It’s really just the same old paradigm with a couple interesting changes thrown in the mix. The MPLStown zoning changes strike me as making explicit what was already occurring. The city was granting exemptions / changes for individual developers in these areas. There were already 5 story apt buildings – the mcurbanism as someone mentioned above – going up along the Hiawatha line in what were otherwise blocks and blocks of SFHs.
The 2 things that this throws into the mix from what I can see are :
a) All residential areas allow for a duplexes and triplexes to be built. No need for any permissions beyond the usual building permitting process
b) Off street parking is no longer required
It’ll be interesting to see how developers and the market respond to this. The last 2 times I’ve walked around the north end of downtown in the milling district which in a generation has gone from a few old buildings and parking lots to a new theater, museum, an Izzys ( most important cuz ice cream! ) a new park and a metric butt ton of condos, it struck me how all that density still lead to zero new street level activity.
The one
I have to admit, you’re creative. It’s hard to tie relaxing zoning constraints to a loss of rights, but you find ways to confuse the issue so much that some readers might just believe you. But if an argument seems too complex, it’s probably trying to cover up a simple truth. In this case, that simple truth is this: relaxing single-family zoning = more freedom. It’s a tautology.
The way you bring urban growth boundaries into the issue of single-family zoning is like when you ask your roommate not to leave dirty dishes in the sink, and they change the topic to accuse you of spending too much time in the shower. Maybe they have a point, but it shouldn’t have any bearing on the resolution of the argument about the dishes.
One other thing – I’m very annoyed with your subtle dig at Jane Jacobs, because it is a provably false characterization of her philosophy. In “Death and Life of Great American Cities”, she has this to say about a large, monotonous apartment building on her block that replaced a number of mostly four-story tenements with street-level stores: “When we first moved to our block, I used to anticipate happily that perhaps soon all the buildings would be rehabilitated like that one. I know better now, and can only anticipate with gloom and foreboding the recent news that exactly this transformation is scheduled for the rest of the block frontage adjoining the high-rent building. The high-rent tenants, most of whom are so transient we cannot even keep track of their faces, have not the remotest idea of who takes care of their street, or how.” I’ve noticed you pepper these kinds of false claims throughout your writing; unclear whether you know what you’re doing or are just lazy with your research.
Anyway, I agree with you that these large, monolithic apartment buildings are bad for their neighborhoods. The issue is that our severe regulations against rowhomes, 2/3/4-plexes, small tenement buildings, and close spacing of buildings serve as barriers to the small community developers who would normally be building these projects; they don’t have enough connections and $ to obtain variances or targeted ordinances from the powerful politicians who serve as the gatekeepers to private property development. And why do we have these strict regulations? Precisely because they give more power to the municipal politicians and largest industry players.
UGB is a type of zoning, no? Zoning that says “nothing may go here”.