Upzoning Does Not Mean Affordable Housing
Current Research on
Outcomes with Upzoning – “Yes in My Backyard” [YIMBY]
Gleaned from a Google search done on the words: Outcomes from Upzoning
Summaries of articles found:
Brookings Institute website
How We Rise: The double-edged sword of Upzoning, Jenna Davis – Thursday, July 15, 2021 The double-edged sword of Upzoning (brookings.edu)
“However, upzonings have ignited the hot-button issue of gentrification. In several cities, upzoning policies have driven a wedge between those fighting for supply-side solutions and tenant advocates. Supply-side advocates, often those affiliated with the yes-in-my-backyard (YIMBY) movement, have argued that upzonings will improve housing affordability, pointing to recent studies (including one in New York and another in 11 cities) that have found that new market-rate development does not trigger increases in surrounding housing costs. Tenant advocates have countered that upzonings will fuel real estate speculation and gentrification, as landlords of upzoned buildings will be incentivized to sell their properties at inflated prices reflecting their added development potential. In doing so, some advocates have pointed to studies (such as this one in Chicago) suggesting that upzonings are in fact associated with increases in property prices, at least in the short-term.”
…”minimal empirical work has examined the effects of upzonings on gentrification. Aiming to address this gap in the literature, I recently conducted a study examining how a series of upzonings implemented in New York City in the early 2000s interacted with subsequent gentrification pressures (using growth in the non-Hispanic white population as a proxy for gentrification). I find that upzoning activity is positively and significantly associated with the odds of a census tract becoming whiter, suggesting that upzonings might accelerate, rather than temper, gentrification pressures in the short-term.”
From Urban Affairs Forum:
Upzoning Chicago: Impacts of a Zoning Reform on Property Values and Housing Construction, Yonah Freemark [MIT] March 29, 2019
“In my new research, recently published in Urban Affairs Review, I delve into this question of what happens in neighborhoods once they are upzoned through a case study of a series of upzonings in Chicago. Implemented in 2013 and 2015, these changes were undertaken broadly, without specific association with new developments or other changes. The upzonings were designed to increase density and reduce parking requirements around rail stations. By examining parcels that were upzoned and comparing them to equivalent, nearby parcels that weren’t, I set out to determine what, exactly, happens in the short term after an upzoning.
I identified two primary conclusions about the effects of the zoning changes. First of all, I found no perceptible uptick in new housing-unit permitting in the upzoned areas compared to the unaffected areas over five years. This might seem like a surprise in light of the news stories regarding apartment projects going up in areas around transit in Chicago in recent years. But my study shows that the zoning reform itself did not induce a specific increase in construction compared to other neighborhoods.
Second, I found an increase in property values in upzoned areas roughly equivalent to the increase in allowed density. This finding extended to existing residential units in some of the models I used, indicating that the cost of living in certain neighborhoods actually increased in the period I examined.
Together, these two findings paint an interesting picture: In the first few years following an upzoning, construction may not immediately increase but the cost of property will.
The two conclusions of this study reflect in part the fact that development is a lengthy process; it takes time to move from a policy like zoning to actually getting housing units in the ground. They also reflect the fact that property buyers did rather quickly take the zoning change into account—they were willing to pay more for buildings and land in the upzoned areas.”
New MIT study suggests the Yimby narrative on housing is wrong, Tim Redmond, 48hills, January 29, 2019
New MIT study suggests the Yimby narrative on housing is wrong – 48 hills
- “There’s no evidence in the study that allowing greater density in areas close to transit actually leads to more construction – certainly not to the construction of affordable units.
Affordability in the areas where the city allowed increased density declined, he reports.”
- “On the specific parcels where upzoning occurs, costs appear to go up for individual housing units.”
- Allowing increased density when area is already dense makes land more valuable and thus increases housing and rental prices not only in area upzoned but also surrounding areas
- “But he [Freeman] puts into perspective some of the calls from the local Yimbys, who have said that eliminating all single-family housing in the city and (as Sen. Scott Wiener says) “legalizing apartment buildings”) will lead to more affordable housing.
There is not data that I know of showing that to be true. And now there is some good data suggesting that it may be entirely false.”
- Link to Freeman article in Urban Affairs Review: Upzoning Chicago: Impacts of a Zoning Reform on Property Values and Housing Construction – Yonah Freemark, 2020 (sagepub.com)
What is upzoning and what does it mean for property managers?, Laurie Mega, Buildium, July 19, 2019
What is upzoning and what does it mean for property managers? – Buildium
“However, different cities are handling upzoning in different ways. Some are simply relaxing current zoning laws, while others are rezoning with a specific goal in mind. Let’s take a look at a few case studies to see how cities are implementing upzoning and what effect it’s having.”
- NYC – in East Village – no requirement for affordable units, restrictions to preserve character – outcome – only ½ anticipated units built
- Seattle – created high-density pockets and requirements for affordable housing in each new development. No outcome measures yet
- DC – NoMa [North of Massachusetts Avenue – increase in property taxes and rents went up considerably
- CA upzoning plans – no data on outcomes yet
What’s Missing from the Upzoning Conversation?, Andrew [no last name listed] Opportunity Labs, July 9, 2019 What’s Missing from the Upzoning Conversation? — Opportunity Labs
Entire article is critical –
By Andrew
As has now been widely reported, on the last day of the season’s legislative session, the Oregon State Senate passed House Bill 2001, a first-in-the-nation statewide package of regulatory measures that effectively bans zoning of single family housing in cities of over 10,000 in favor of “missing middle housing”—that is, everything between single family and high-rise apartments.
Whether the bill will incentivize new affordable housing development, thus decreasing housing prices as more stock comes online—and simultaneously eliminating vestiges of racial and exclusionary economic segregation—remains to be seen.
Lots of folks cite evidence in support of that idea. Recently, however, two prominent economists argued that the notion that an insufficient supply of housing is a main cause of urban economic problems is based on a number of faulty premises. An analysis of zoning changes in Chicago came to similar conclusions about the effectiveness of increasing allowed densities as an affordability mechanism. It is worth noting that the latter has been critiqued. At the least, these papers should give us pause.
Despite the ambiguity of outputs and outcomes resulting from upzoning, as the regulatory practice is commonly known, the practice is in vogue. Cities from Minneapolis to Seattle are experimenting with regulatory loosening (and associated tactics including developer incentives). Odd bedfellows have emerged. The NIMBYism v. YIMBism debate proceeds (and will only be made trickier by the Trump Administration’s entrance into the conversation and the acceleration of the Democratic primary process).
Stroper, an economist at UCLA and one of the authors of the paper cited above, argues “housing is an area where the law of unintended consequences is most powerful.”
Given the deep and obvious connections between housing and education we have been surprised to find no serious conversation about the second-order effects of upzoning on schooling.
For example, upzoning may lead directly to new public infrastructure needs, such as the need to provide new seats for new students. I have seen no public analysis or distillation of plans from Oregon or cities experimenting with upzoning to address the obvious and non-obvious impacts on education. Minneapolis’ 2040 plan, which many have lauded, makes no attempt to answer obvious questions:
- If upzoning increases neighborhood density, where is the funding coming from to support the associated new school seat needs?
- Is existing human capital infrastructure sufficient to handle new seat needs (do we have enough school leaders, teachers, and support staff)?
- What are the potential school funding impacts (e.g., flows of student-connected federal funding streams)?
- How might geographic shifts impact and intersect with local work on school integration?
- What happens to schools in neighborhoods that families are moving out of?
The three million plus Oregonians who will be impacted by 2001 should be clamoring for answers to these questions (and many more).
More affordable housing is noble and necessary. Zoning should certainly remain one of the tools that we utilize to increase affordability. Yet, it seems absurd to pull this lever without attempting to understand the trickle-down impacts on our most valuable resource and best hope for the future: our children.
Use Upzoning Sparingly, New Report Suggests, Cinnamon Janzer, Next City: Backyard – Next City on Housing Equity, August 31, 2021 Use Upzoning Sparingly, New Report Suggests (nextcity.org)
Note: Backyard, a newsletter exploring scalable solutions to make housing fairer, more affordable and more environmentally sustainable.
- rezonings have different effects in different communities.
- “Specifically, neighborhood upzonings in BIPOC, low-income communities are where these rezonings are really going to cause more harm than good,” [Chris] Walters [of the Association for Neighborhood and Housing Development] says.
- “Targeted rezonings produced a higher ratio of affordable housing to market-rate housing”
- “While I totally agree that single family zoning is by its nature part of our country’s history of racial segregation and exclusionary housing policy, it’s more nuanced and just eliminating it does not, in fact, actually repair the harms of it,” Delaney says. “If you just undo that but leave everything else the same, the research is laying out what we know to be true—the same winners and losers in the current market will win and lose based on this.” From Will Delaney, associate director of Hope Community, Inc. in Minneapolis
- Also from Mr. Delaney – “For communities of color like the folks who live in Phillips,” he continues, “just eliminating single family zoning doesn’t make them any more able to benefit or build wealth through housing. If anything, it makes it easier for gentrification to happen, which is something we’ve been seeing at a large scale all over our neighborhood.”
- For Walters, the answer lies in treating rezoning and upzoning as what they are—one housing tool among many that should be used where appropriate
Who Really Benefits from Upzoning in Sacramento? – Deregulatory Upzoning: “Cui Bono?” – A repost from the Livable Portland Blog, East Sacramento Preservation, August 15, 2021
This is more an opinion piece than a data piece, but the author does cite reference cities. The claims looked at include:
- Upzoning is an effective strategy in creating greater
- Affordability
- Equity
- Sustainability
- Are there other explanations for aggressive promotion – essentially, are there financial benefits from the process?
Findings –
- Upzoning strategy for affordability is built on linear thinking. Vancouver, BC belies the linear nature. Its new building of denser, taller projects resulted in more units that are costlier and has pushed it to become the most expensive market in North America. The “attractive urban scene is also populated almost entirely by relatively wealthy urban elites not a diverse rand-and-file citizenry”
- Older, heritage structures get demolished and are replaced with new buildings that may not last.
- “It is naïve to assume that everyone will want to live in dense cores – and certainly a disturbing idea that we should force them.”
- Building in the sub-centers of major cities – like Edmonds to Seattle
- Projects built that are more expensive than existing stock
- Only rewards the developers
- “Older and historic homes are on average significantly more affordable than the structures that replace them”
Author argues for a poly-centric approach in urban areas to density. He encourages recognizing local citizens as allies in finding solutions
As to cui bono? He feels it is developers, architects and planners – not really the citizens
Facts and Data Continue to Contradict Upzoning Argument, Andrew Berman, Village Preservation, October 24, 2021
Facts and Data Continue to Contradict Upzoning Argument – Village Preservation
Property Shark survey findings
- City’s [NYC] most expensive neighborhood is the one with the most new housing construction
- Contextual upzoning – no correlation to higher prices than neighborhood’s without such changes
- …”we have to recognize that opening the floodgates to vastly increased market rate housing development in our city may benefit developers and the very wealthy but will help few others. And this can be true even when there are affordable housing set-asides in these mammoth new developments…”
- …”need to be guided by empirical data, and the facts. These show allowing large scale new market rate housing development doesn’t help the cause of affordability, and landmark and zoning restrictions that reinforce neighborhood character and keep new development in scale don’t hurt it. Instead, promoting policies as I’ve previously suggested which hold on to as much of our existing affordable housing as possible, connecting it to those who most need it, and creating new affordable housing without it being dependent upon vastly increased amounts of new market rate housing, are what’s needed to truly address our city’s housing affordability needs. “