A quintessential American neighborhood of single-family homes. Zoning codes often prevent such neighborhoods from evolving to accommodate other housing types or lower price points.

Something remarkable is happening this year in City 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.

The Snowball is Rolling Downhill

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 the typical large U.S. city 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.

Craftsman home in Elmwood, Berkeley, California. Via Flickr

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.

A large house in Myers Park, Charlotte, NC. Via Flickr.

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 U.S.— 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 urban and 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.

Strong Towns Essential Reading on Single-Family Zoning

Here's your primer on the issue of single-family zoning from a Strong Towns perspective.

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.

Q: Is this some left-wing proposal?

A: Not at all. It transcends the usual ideological divides—you will find zoning reformers and opponents in all corners of the political map. So while you may more often hear advocates who identify as politically left-of-center or progressive cite things such as the racial and class divides perpetuated by single-family zoning, there are also very strong arguments for these reforms that are rooted in conservative principles of respect for property rights and the limits of top-down regulation.

Read: ”The Conservative Case for Ending Single-Family Zoning,” by Charles Marohn.

Q: Does this really have anything to do with affordability?

A: Yes! It’s not necessarily that every specific new home allowed by a citywide zoning change will be affordable. New construction is expensive to build and thus is rarely cheap to buy or rent. But what is true is that allowing the overall housing supply to flex and meet demand is a key strategy for keeping the cost of existing housing in your city from going through the roof.

Listen: Jenny Schuetz of the Brookings Institution on the Strong Towns Podcast about the causes of the affordability crisis.

Q: Will this really lead to a surge in new rental homes?

A: The kind of developer who builds a triplex or converts an existing single-family home into one is not at all the same kind of developer who builds a 200-unit apartment complex. But that’s why this is so important—because there are potentially many times more of the former than the latter, and many times more development sites where something is viable! Much depends a lot on the work of cultivating an ecosystem of incremental developers in your town. But zoning reform will give that important work a giant boost, and the potential benefits are enormous.

Read: ”Unleash the Swarm,” by Daniel Herriges.

Q: What else has to happen for that surge to unfold?

A: There are lots of ways to stymie housing without banning it. This includes imposing conditions such as height and size limits that make it impractical, or having a permitting process so convoluted and uncertain that only the largest developers can make it through. All of these factors favor large developers who benefit from scarcity, while making it hard to impossible for small developers to operate.

Read: Minneapolis small developer Bruce Brunner interviewed on the pitfalls of his city’s recent single-family zoning reform.

Read: ”The Most Important Planning Concept You’ve Never Heard Of,” by Nolan Gray.

Q: How has the discourse shifted over time on this issue?

A: Something else cool has happened: the momentum on this approach has shifted from initially favoring convoluted, technocratic approaches, with a lot of carve-outs and caveats and careful targeting of where affordable housing is to be build and how affordable it should be. Recently, we see a growing number of housing advocates favoring something much more like a Strong Towns approach—where the goal is to enable organic bottom-up growth in many places, through a set of simple rules applied everywhere.

Read: ”A Step in a Stronger Direction for California Housing Policy,” from March 2020, by Daniel Herriges.

Read: ”When We Make it Hard to Build, We Give Developers More Power Over Our Communities,” by Daniel Herriges.

Cover image: Inside St. Petersburg, FL city hall. Image via Flickr.