Abolish Single-Family Zoning

In the United States and abroad, housing crises abound; from San Francisco to Auckland, New Zealand, shortages of affordable housing options are common. One cause of such shortages is zoning laws, which in the United States have been around for decade and, at first glance, are sensible. There should be laws governing where and what kinds of buildings developers can build. One type of zoning law in particular, however, has historically been wielded not as an instrument of equality but rather as a discriminatory sieve, sectioning off an already divided society into quarters of “Haves” and, quite literally, “Have Nots.” Manville, Monkkonen, and Lens, in their recent paper, “It’s Time to End Single-Family Zoning,” argue that this kind of zoning law, known as Single-Family Zoning or “R1,” is not only rooted in “explicitly classist and implicitly racist motivations,” but also actively encourages those ideologies.

R1, redlining, and restrictive covenants form a trio of housing policies that has led to an unequal and unjust housing market which restricts the access families of color have to safe and affordable housing. Consequently, Manville et al. recommend that city planners work to abolish R1 entirely. While it would be difficult to abolish such an entrenched and unjust system of power, doing so would help reduce the rate of American homelessness by increasing the amount of available housing. It would also help ameliorate some of the inequality that single-family zoning itself has caused.

In their article, Manville et al. argue R1 zoning should be abolished in favor of more inclusive zoning policies. Citing the historical use of R1 zoning for the purposes of segregation and exclusion, they emphasize that getting rid of R1 zoning would encourage not just the development of “townhouses, triplexes, and so on” (Manville et al., 2020), but would also improve the wellbeing of lower income renters in the United States. Giving this predominantly non-White group access to the “prosperous and amenity-rich neighborhoods” (Manville et al., 2020) which are dominated by R1 zoning is not just a beneficial moral outcome, it would also encourage the development of diverse housing options by pushing developers to think about functional density rather than high-rise luxury.

This, they say, would bring a long-needed reprieve to housing crises across the nation, especially in large cities where a substantial percentage of the land is restricted by R1 zoning. Manville et al. are also careful to note that getting rid of restrictive zoning like R1 does not imply the adoption of extremely permissive zoning. They are not arguing, they say, for skyscrapers to loom high over detached single-family homes. Rather, they argue for increased housing density and diversity, which would help to alleviate housing crises and homelessness nationwide.

It is difficult not to appreciate the benefits Manville et al. claim would arise as a result of abolishing R1 zoning. Increased urban and neighborhood housing density, higher property values, and the improved professional and personal wellbeing of lower-income communities are all tangible benefits of such a policy proposal. As the authors acknowledge, however, the adoption of R1 zoning could very well result in evictions. By increasing property values via up-zoning, and thereby encouraging developers to buy up properties they view as “underproducing,” abolishing R1 zoning could put some families on the street. However, if protections against the drawbacks of up-zoning, like a progressive tax on real estate transfers, would be implemented alongside the abolishment of R1 zoning, evictions would be few and far between.

Despite the tangible merits of Manville et al.’s proposal to abolish R1, ripping up the roots of a deeply entrenched American policy would not be easy. Manville et al.’s proposal to abolish single-family zoning would, however, be a boon to the current movement, led especially by organizations like Black Lives Matter, to challenge and eliminate the system of institutional racism and injustice that plagues American society today. Even though it would likely take years to abolish single-family zoning, the benefits of such an achievement – most importantly among them the opportunity for poor families and families of color to finally gain access to the high-quality resources and opportunities associated with suburban living – should motivate policymakers and city planners to greet such a proposal with open arms and cautious optimism.

---

Manville, Michael, Paavo Monkkonen, and Michael Lens. 2020. “It’s Time to End Single-Family Zoning,” Journal of the American
Planning Association 86, (1): 106-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2019.1651216.