This article by Daniel Herriges appeared on StrongTowns.org on March 4, 2021.
Something remarkable is happening this year in Town Halls across America. An essential reform for the prosperity and resilience of American cities is on the agenda in more places than ever. We’re talking about allowing the next increment of development to take its course in all neighborhoods… (not just a few hot ones experiencing the brunt of growth).
And this requires removing the straitjacket of overly rigid single-family zoning. We don’t have a crystal ball, but on this issue, it sure seems like the proverbial snowball is beginning to roll downhill. And this is very good news.
Here’s your primer on why, featuring some of Strong Towns’s best coverage of and commentary on this issue from the past few years, in case you’ve missed it.
Seven to ten years ago, the issue of residential zoning as a systemic problem with American city planning (as opposed to something to be adjusted in specific locations, like a large redevelopment site, or around a major transit station) was scarcely even on the table. High rents were a growing concern, as many cities emerged from the last recession with an increased share of renter households and historically low construction levels. But aside from a few activists, almost no one was pointing a finger at the fact that 70%, 80%, or more of our typical large US cities has been set aside to allow one and only one type of housing:
Detached, single-family homes.
By two to four years ago, it wasn’t “almost no one” anymore. The issue of exclusive single-family zoning was in the public consciousness in a big way, thanks in large part to books like Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law and long-form reporting from outlets like The New York Times.
But most local governments were loath to address the issue, seeing it as a political third rail.
In places like California where the housing discourse was at its most vicious, polarized and dysfunctional, the politics of the issue led many housing advocates to conclude that the only path forward was statewide reform that would preempt local opposition. And yet state-level efforts to eliminate local bans on multifamily housing have sputtered again and again… in California and elsewhere (though it scored a big success in Oregon in 2019).
So here’s the remarkable thing. We’re only two months into 2021, and what has happened in California? Here’s a hint: don’t look to the state capitol.
In Sacramento, the Golden State’s 6th largest city and hub of its 4th largest metropolitan area, the City Council voted 8 to 0 in January to move forward on a general plan that will allow up to a fourplex in residential zones throughout the city, and expedite permitting to prevent cripplingly expensive delays.
In February, Berkeley’s City Council did similarly. This is historic for several reasons:
- The vote was unanimous.
- The vote was unanimous even though as recently as 2017, Berkeley’s housing politics were known for being so contentious that a two-year battle involving multiple lawsuits over a single triplex received a New York Times writeup.
- Berkeley is the first city in the San Francisco Bay Area, the region with the highest housing costs in the country, to take this categorical step.
- Berkeley was the first city in the United States to institute single-family zoning, in its Elmwood neighborhood all the way back in 1916.
Berkeley’s not the only city in the Bay looking at its single-family zones. South San Francisco and — a big one — San Jose are studying doing likewise.
Outside California, the issue is on the table in a lot of places it wouldn’t have been even a few years ago. In statehouses, consider:
Connecticut, where a proposal backed by a broad coalition would have the state require municipalities to allow accessory dwelling units and 2- to 4-plexes in most non-rural residential contexts.
Utah, where a bill under consideration would universally allow internal accessory dwelling units — functionally, about the same thing as a duplex.
New Hampshire, where a bill in the state assembly would allow fourplexes on any residential lot served by water and sewer.
And as cities go, both Atlanta and Charlotte — two rapidly growing Southern cities that are among the most suburban, most car-oriented, and most dominated by single-family neighborhoods among all major cities in the US — have plans under consideration right now (One Atlanta and Charlotte Future 2040) that put single-family zoning in the crosshairs as a historic mistake responsible for racial segregation and unaffordability.
Recent reporting indicates these proposals in Atlanta and Charlotte have big political hurdles to overcome. But the fact that they’re even proposals in those places — not the density-friendly Northeast, nor the progressive-minded West Coast that likes to be on the vanguard of things — is a huge deal.
Paradigm shifts have a long incubation period. Problems become evident, and the first pioneers take up the cause of reform, leading to subtle but growing grassroots momentum and networks of activists. And then at some point, the dam breaks. Or you could say the Overton Window lurches. City officials who don’t fancy themselves on the vanguard of anything are now far more open to think of the new idea as something they should at least be looking into.
We predict that universal upzoning to the next increment of residential development—the “missing middle” categories of at least 2- through 4-plexes and ADUs—will soon be at the level of public awareness where it is at least brought up for discussion in every city of any size.
And if it is, we’re proud to have been beating this drum early and been a contributor — one among many — to changing minds on this issue. Here are a few Strong Towns articles on the same topic:
Q: Is this a radical experiment?
A: No, unless by “radical” you mean the word’s original sense of “returning to roots.” Prior to the 20th century, there was no such thing as single-family zoning. The legacy of this mindset is still visible in just about every American neighborhood founded before the 1920s or 1930s, in which you will see an eclectic mix of homes that naturally includes things like duplexes and small apartment buildings. And guess what: most of these are beloved neighborhoods considered charming and historic today!
Read: ”Making Normal Neighborhoods Legal Again,” by Daniel Herriges
Q: Why is it so important that the next increment of residential development be allowed?
A: In traditional cities it was understood that neighborhoods would grow and change over time — and that this ability to redevelop to something more intense was absolutely central to how cities worked. By getting away from this understanding, we have stagnated neighborhoods, giving them no way to redevelop and evolve toward a future other than eventual decline.
Read: ”The Power of Growing Incrementally,” by Chuck Marohn.
Q: Why is it important to allow the next increment everywhere, not in select neighborhoods?
A: American cities suffer from a problem of polarization, in which a small minority of neighborhoods are left to absorb the brunt of new development — including the displacement and disruption of existing communities — while the vast majority are kept under glass. We need to undo this destructive bargain by allowing incremental neighborhood growth and organic regeneration across the board.
Read: ”Two Simple Rules for Healthy Neighborhood Change,” by Daniel Herriges.
The Pagosa Daily Post welcomes submissions, photos, letters and videos from people who love Pagosa Springs, Colorado. Call 970-903-2673 or email pagosadailypost@gmail.com