|
<br />Along with the Portland, Oregon, area, the
<br />Minneapolis-St. Paul region 'IS one offew where
<br />local housing plans are subject to a review by a
<br />regional planning agency-the Metropolitan
<br />Council. The Council's jurisdiction extends over
<br />the seven-county area. An apparent consequence
<br />of that oversight is that, at least for the sample of
<br />five cities whose plans and development regula-
<br />tions were reviewed in this study, there is recogni.
<br />tion of the need for multifamily housing and local.
<br />governments allow it in varying degrees. In the
<br />Twin Cities area, those interviewed said that atti.
<br />tudes were changing toward town houses and the
<br />area was experiencing in an increase in their
<br />numbers.
<br />
<br />Portland, O,egon
<br />The Portland study area is growing quickly. With
<br />that growth has come relatively rapid increases in
<br />housing prices and rents as well as increased
<br />density in many of the region's jurisdictions.
<br />Overall, the ratio of zoned housing units to built
<br />housing units is high, while relative to the other
<br />study areas, zoned density is about average-
<br />suggesting that increased built density is possible
<br />within the existing zoning code. Portland's high.
<br />density zoned land has the highest number of
<br />units zoned per acre of any of the regions.
<br />In summary, Oregon's state policy frame.
<br />work mal,es it more difficult for jurisd'lctions to
<br />use zoning to intentionally limit multifamily devel.
<br />opment and zoning in the Portland study area.
<br />The effects that Portland's urban growth bound.
<br />ary may have on housing prices notwithstanding,
<br />zohing does more to encourage the development
<br />of multifamily housing units than to impede it.
<br />
<br />SaCT2mento1 California
<br />Densities and housing prices in the Sacramento
<br />study area are relatively low, and the multifamily
<br />share of housing units is the lowest of all of the
<br />study areas. Although some Sacramento area juris.
<br />dictions have little land designated for high.den.
<br />sity development, the region offers weak evidence
<br />that zoning serves as a barrier to muitifamily
<br />development. As with the Minneapolis-St. Paul
<br />study area, this weak evidence could result from a
<br />lack of zoning data for the entire metropolitan
<br />area.
<br />The share of residential land planned for high.
<br />density housing by jurisdictions in the Sacramento
<br />metropolitan area ranges from zero to 20 percent.
<br />Some of the cities with the highest median home
<br />values also have among the lowest percentages of
<br />existing multifamily units. Further, the comprehen.
<br />sive plan designations vary among the jurisdictions
<br />in the region. Some have large portions of land des.
<br />
<br />
<br />ignated for higher-density housing, while others
<br />have little or no land planned to accommodate mul.
<br />tifamily dwelling units.
<br />Local stakeholders acknowledged that zon-
<br />ing presents an impediment to affordable hous.
<br />ing in the Sacramento area, but argued that zon-
<br />ing is also an important part of the solution.
<br />Several inte-rviewees pointed to inclusionary
<br />zoning codes, which require the inclusion of
<br />affordable units in new developments, as an
<br />important tool for combating the affordability cri.
<br />sis that has accompanied rising housing costs.
<br />At the same time, other factors, such as commu.
<br />nity and developer opposition and condominium
<br />conversions, also contribute to the problem of
<br />affordability.
<br />
<br />Washjngt~ln, DL
<br />The Washington, D.c., metropolitan area is a large,
<br />diverse, and-in recent years-rapidly growing
<br />area. The study area includes several of the rkhest
<br />and fastest growing counties in the country and
<br />one of the poorest and most challenged central
<br />cities. Even so, housing affordability measures for
<br />metropolitan Washington are consistently among
<br />the lowest in the nation, overall densities are rela-
<br />tively low, and housing production rates, espe-
<br />cially multifamily housing production rates, are
<br />low relative to population growth.
<br />In sum, it is relatively clear that zoning is a
<br />powerful and influential instrument inthe
<br />Washington, D.c., metropolitan area. Low-den.
<br />sity zoning in the rural areas of Virginia and
<br />Maryland clearly keep densities in these areas
<br />below their market detenmined levels. We do not
<br />address the merits of such policies here. Further,
<br />there is evidence that zoned densities, on aver.
<br />age, are exceptionally low in some jurisdictions
<br />and in some parts of many jurisdictions. In these
<br />locations, it is clear zoning represents.a barrier
<br />to high-density development. Virginia's Dillon's
<br />rule and an anti-regulatory culture impose con-
<br />straints on the ability of local governments to
<br />use zoning as a regulatory barrier in Virginia.
<br />There are few such constraints in Maryland.
<br />
<br />CONCLUSION
<br />Overall, the results offer compelling evidence that
<br />regulatory barriers can impede the development of
<br />high.density multifamily housing. Analysis of GIS
<br />data suggests that local regulations can affect hous.
<br />ing development pattems and demonstrate that
<br />some local govemments have little or no land zoned
<br />for multifamily use. Qualitative analysis of local land.
<br />use regulations in several jurisdictions provides cor.
<br />roborating evidence that regulatory barriers exist.
<br />
<br />Jurisdictions identified as having barriers to
<br />multifamily development were frequently less
<br />dense and often more expensive than their neigh.
<br />bors. Stakeholder interviews, however, under.
<br />scored the finding that zoning alone does not
<br />cause (or solve) the problem of affordable housing.
<br />Multifamily housing is not always cheap, and sin.
<br />gle-family housing is not always expensive.
<br />Multifamily zoning is thus neither necessary nor
<br />sufficient as a policy response to the problem of
<br />housing affordability.
<br />There is mounting evidence that zoning repre.
<br />sents a barrier to affordable housing production in
<br />some communities. This study adds to that body of
<br />evidence. That said, the .critical question now is not
<br />whether regulatory barriers to affordable housing
<br />exist in some communities, but whether it is possi.
<br />ble to identify such communities and craft an
<br />appropriate policy response. The results of this
<br />stLidy suggest that the collection and integration of
<br />quality land-use and regulatory data at the regional
<br />level helps in such identification. With persistence,
<br />this infonmation may lead to the discovery of an
<br />appropriate policy response.
<br />
<br />
<br />\::,.}!... 24~ NO.7
<br />
<br />- .. - .,. .' . - ,. . ~
<br />.:.:;rnr:f ;.->rCC[lC2 is 2. Gor::::r;c! :,Ij~~1C2.:1("f!. c.;"; rt"'IE
<br />
<br />A;TJSllCcli ;:-'iannhg .k.ss.C:'::i2::j(m, 5(j~:5ubt;~)ns 2~=
<br />
<br />=,."a;iabie fer 575 ::u"5.) ~:-;.-- 2;::.:c J;:--2~~-' VV ';'2'..!:
<br />
<br />~c.;-me:, ~,.\KF. E~=:ecl..r:':;ve D~:-2~~~Y!'"_~ \'Vi;_lj2.~ q,
<br />
<br />!"t-=::i,
<br />
<br />:'JC? D~r,=<:~'~r ,:.7 Ri::5.~~ :'ch.
<br />
<br />Zoning PractiCE U5Si\11542-o-:!3S'; is Droduc.ed Ol
<br />
<br />.~.~'A. Jim Schwab, Ale?, Editor; Mic!l3et Davidson.
<br />
<br />Guest Editor; Ju~ie Von Bergen, ,ll,ssistar:t Editor;
<br />
<br />LiSe Barton, Design and Froduction.
<br />
<br />CoPVrigh1 1I;2007 by Amede2n Plailning
<br />,ll.SSDelation. 222 S. rVlichig-an ,t.ve.. Suite 1000.
<br />
<br />Chiccgo, IL 60603_ The .~iTleijc2n Planning
<br />Association also hES c,fflce5 at 1776
<br />
<br />II/\assachuserts .'Alle.. N.W., VVashingtoil, D.C.
<br />
<br />20036; vvww_;::danning.oig.
<br />
<br />All rights ieser\/ed. No perl of this publication mev be
<br />reproduced or utilized in anv fOilTI .Jr DV any mear5.
<br />electronic or mechanicaL including pnotocop~!lng.
<br />recording, or by 2nV informcTion storage and ietiieval
<br />svstem. without p-::rmission in wrh:ing from the
<br />.~,meri(an Planning ,~5socjalion.
<br />
<br />P!"!Gted Gn r~c/ci-=d pEper, lfiClu.6jiig =.O-70~J~ r2C:~
<br />
<br />::.t2d nber 3~Ci 1C% ;y.:.stco:;si..;mer \f\.i5.S!S.
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICE 7.07
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I poge 7
<br />
<br />143
<br />
|