It's Time to End Single-Family Zoning

Local planning in the United States is unique in the amount of land it reserves for detached single-family homes. This privileging of single-family homes, normally called R1 zoning, exacerbates inequality and undermines efficiency. R1’s origins are unpleasant: Stained by explicitly classist and implicitly racist motivations, R1 today continues to promote exclusion. It makes it harder for people to access high-opportunity places, and in expensive regions it contributes to shortages of housing, thereby benefiting homeowners at the expense of renters and forcing many housing consumers to spend more on housing. Stacked against these drawbacks, moreover, are a series of only weak arguments in R1’s favor about preferences, aesthetics, and a single-family way of life. We demonstrate that these pro-R1 concerns are either specious, or can be addressed in ways less socially harmful than R1. Given the strong arguments against R1 and the weak arguments for it, we contend planners should work to abolish R1 single-family zoning

Behaviour, Preferences and Cities : Urban Theory and Urban Resurgence

The resurgence of big, old cities and their regions is real, but it is merely a part of a broader pattern of urban change in the developed countries, whose broadest tendency is urban emergence, including suburbanisation, and movements of population to certain 'Sunbelt' regions. The problem is that it is difficult to accommodate explanation of both resurgence and emergence using the main explanations in the field today. These include: theories of the knowledge or creative economy, urban amenities, diversity and tolerance, and urban beauty. In most of their common specifications, they do well for either resurgent or emergent cities, but not for both at the same time. This suggests that these ideas, interesting as they are, require much greater specification and, in some cases, overhaul, in order to offer satisfactory responses to the diversity of patterns of urban growth. By examining some of these deficiencies, we conclude that urban theory needs a better understanding of urban choice behaviours and especially the effects of bundling, the limits to preference substitutions and the relationship between past and present preferences, in order to become fully effective in explaining urban resurgence and urban emergence. When these aspects of choice and preference are better integrated into urban theory, then the 'exogenous' causes of urbanisation can be made more endogenous and, in addition, they can be applied better to both emergence and resurgence. Urban research can, by so doing, also potentially become more policy-relevant

Better Parking Policy Can Make California Transportation More Sustainable

California emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic with a renewed commitment to sustainable, functional transportation. In some ways, the pandemic itself offered a glimpse of what a system built on those goals might offer. Driving plunged during the COVID lockdowns, and congestion and pollution fell alongside it. Parking spaces were repurposed for dining, revealing the vast amount of space cities had used to store empty vehicles. Traffic was lighter, the air was cleaner, and in at least some regards the streets were livelier. Can the state keep or recapture some of these benefits going forward? If so, how

Parking, Working from Home, and Travel Behavior

Drawing on the California Household Travel Survey, we demonstrate strong associations between choosing to drive and having free parking at work or home. We find that the median household vehicle in California spends 22 hours a day parked, and that households with parking included in the rent or purchase price of their homes are more likely to drive,and less likely to use transit. We further find that employees with free parking at work are more likely to drive for their commutes. We estimate regressions that analyze the decision to work from home. Largely for data reasons, these regressions are less conclusive

Zoning and affordability: A reply to Rodríguez-Pose and Storper.

Would increasing allowable housing densities in expensive cities generate more housing construction and make housing more affordable? In a provocative article, Andrés Rodríguez-Pose and Michael Storper survey the evidence and answer no. Restrictions on housing density, they contend, do not substantially influence housing production or price. They further argue that allowing more density in growing metropolitan areas would only improve housing outcomes for the affluent, and most likely harm the poor. We take issue with both of these contentions. While uncertainties remain in the study of housing prices and land use regulation, neither theory nor evidence warrant dispensing with zoning reform, or concluding that it could only be regressive. Viewed in full, the evidence suggests that increasing allowable housing densities is an important part of housing affordability in expensive regions