R1 Zoning: Single-Family Housing

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to Lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

Match each term with its effect on housing and urban development according to the text:

R1 Zoning = Limits housing supply and diversity, increasing costs. Increased Housing Vouchers = Can be pocketed as profit by landlords without changes to R1 zoning. Upzoning R1 = May lead to displacement of renters if not managed carefully. Aesthetic Preferences for Single-Family Homes = Used as a justification for maintaining R1 zoning, despite social costs.

Match the following concepts with their associated descriptions or implications:

Collective Action Problem = Arises when individual pursuit of self-interest leads to a harmful outcome for the larger group. Euclid Decision = Historically influenced zoning, with implications for maintaining neighborhood character. Housing Scarcity = Drives up property values and disproportionately benefits homeowners over renters. Upzoning = Can lead to increased housing supply and diversity, potentially reducing costs.

Match the following arguments against R1 zoning with their corresponding rebuttals or counterarguments presented in the text:

Most Americans Prefer Single-Family Homes = The prevalence of single-family homes might be an artifact of constrained choice due to zoning regulations. Ending R1 Risks Evicting Tenants = Cities can implement renter protections, such as ample notice and buyouts, to manage potential displacement. Focus Should Be on Other Exclusionary Practices = Ending R1 is necessary and can enhance the efficacy of other reforms like expanding housing vouchers. R1 Promotes Family-Friendly Neighborhoods = This idea is classist, as families successfully raise children in various housing types.

Match each city or location with its zoning characteristic related to single-family homes:

<p>San Francisco = Approximately 38% of residential land is R1 zoned. Los Angeles = More than 70% of residential land is R1 zoned. Seattle = More than 80% of residential land is R1 zoned. Prosperous Suburbs = R1 zoning approaches ubiquity.</p> Signup and view all the answers

Match the concepts related to zoning and urban planning with their descriptions:

<p>Form-Based Codes = Zoning that prioritizes the physical form of buildings and public spaces over strict use restrictions. Accessory Dwelling Units = Small, independent housing units located on the same property as a single-family home. Minimum Lot Sizes = Regulations that specify the smallest permissible area for a building lot. Housing Vouchers = Government assistance that helps low-income families afford housing in the private market.</p> Signup and view all the answers

Match the following potential outcomes of ending R1 zoning with their associated benefits or challenges:

<p>Increased Housing Supply = Could lead to lower housing costs and greater affordability. Renter Displacement = Requires strong renter protections to mitigate negative impacts. Windfall for Homeowners = Can be managed through progressive taxes on real estate transfers. Diversity of Housing Options = Allows for a mix of building types, such as townhomes and duplexes.</p> Signup and view all the answers

Match each argument in favor of R1 zoning with the reason it is considered weak, according to the article:

<p>Preserves Neighborhood Character = Aesthetics are subjective, and prioritizing them can come at a high social cost. Promotes Homeownership = Homeownership is not the only way families can thrive and should not be the sole focus of public policy. Protects Property Values = Higher property values for owners mean higher rents for tenants, exacerbating wealth gaps. Reflects Majority Preference = Evidence suggests zoning influences preferences, and it is unnecessary where it does not bind.</p> Signup and view all the answers

Match each concept from urban planning with its impact on housing affordability and availability:

<p>Inclusionary Zoning = Can increase the supply of affordable housing by requiring developers to include affordable units in new projects. Transit-Oriented Development = Creates denser, mixed-use communities near public transportation, reducing car dependence and housing costs. Density Bonuses = Allow developers to build more units than normally permitted if they include affordable housing or community benefits. Parking Minimums = Increase development costs and reduce the amount of land available for housing.</p> Signup and view all the answers

Match the following cities or states with their zoning reform efforts regarding R1 zoning:

<p>Minneapolis = Developed a general plan framework for ending R1 zoning. Oregon = Proposed legislation similar to Minneapolis's plan to end R1 zoning. California = Legislature considered laws to allow multifamily housing near transit, including R1 zones. Seattle = Mayor suggested ending R1 in the city, sparking debate but facing opposition.</p> Signup and view all the answers

Match the following terms or phrases with their best description relating to R1 zoning's purpose:

<p>Classist Intent = Historically used to exclude lower-income classes from affluent areas. Racist Motivations = Used to segregate neighborhoods by race. Inefficient Land Use = Prevents optimal allocation of resources, leading to inequities. Environmental Unsustainability = Encourages sprawl, increasing emissions and reducing open space.</p> Signup and view all the answers

Flashcards

R1 Zoning

Zoning that reserves most land for detached single-family homes, exacerbating inequality and undermining efficiency.

Effects of R1 Zoning

R1 zoning can inflate home values, protect neighborhood character, and redistribute resources upward, increasing homeowner wealth.

R1 Zoning Abolishment

Ending R1 zoning is a necessary but not sufficient planning reform to solve segregation, exclusion, or housing affordability.

R1 and Family Life

The idea that R1 neighborhoods are the only places families can thrive is mostly a product of classism.

Signup and view all the flashcards

R1 and Access to Housing

Many people are barred from cities and neighborhoods because access is primarily sold in large, expensive chunks through R1 zoning.

Signup and view all the flashcards

R1 and Wealth Distribution

Increases housing prices and exacerbates racial wealth gaps, as homeowners are richer and Whiter than renters.

Signup and view all the flashcards

R1 and Urban Development

R1 zoning pushes development into denser, lower-income neighborhoods and the urban fringe, leading to longer commutes and less open space.

Signup and view all the flashcards

R1 Zoning in Low-Demand areas

Places where housing demand is low and everyone wants a detached single-family home, most structures will be single-family homes, regardless of regulation.

Signup and view all the flashcards

R1 Zoning in High-Demand Areas

In places where housing is in high demand, R1 suppresses the supply and diversity of housing, denying access to those who want it.

Signup and view all the flashcards

R1 and Tenant Eviction

Ending R1 risks evicting tenants in single-family homes, but this concern is not unique to upzoning R1, but upzoning in general.

Signup and view all the flashcards

Study Notes

  • Local planning in the United States uniquely reserves land for detached single-family homes, known as R1 zoning.
  • R1 zoning exacerbates inequality and undermines efficiency.
  • R1 zoning has classist and racist origins and continues to promote exclusion.
  • R1 makes it harder for people to access high-opportunity places.
  • In expensive regions, R1 contributes to housing shortages, benefiting homeowners at the expense of renters.
  • Concerns in R1's favor about preferences and aesthetics are weak and can be addressed in socially less harmful ways.
  • Planners should abolish R1 single-family zoning due to the strong arguments against it and the weak arguments for it.
  • R1 zoning is inequitable, inefficient, and environmentally unsustainable.
  • R1 lets a small number of people amass disproportionate property wealth and excludes others from high-opportunity neighborhoods.
  • R1 forces some to pay more for housing than they should.
  • R1 prevents housing development where it would be most beneficial, pushing it into denser, lower-income neighborhoods.
  • R1 was born from a desire to set privileged in-groups apart and keep feared or despised outgroups at bay.
  • Ending R1 alone will not solve segregation, exclusion, or housing affordability; it is a necessary but not sufficient reform.
  • R1 is both important and overlooked and remains a third rail.
  • No city should have land where only a detached single-family home can be built in the 21st century.
  • There is nothing wrong with detached single-family homes as a private choice, but it does not warrant public protection.
  • People in detached single-family homes do not need laws ensuring that nothing will surround them but structures like their own.
  • R1 restricts the availability of small doses of land, forcing people to buy more than they need at a higher price.
  • Access to land has powerful implications for wellbeing.
  • Residential location affects exposure to pollution and violence, school quality, and job access.
  • Location has large and multigenerational returns, yielding better outcomes for people who move in and their children.
  • Letting more people live in prosperous neighborhoods would dramatically increase wellbeing.
  • R1 bars many people from cities and neighborhoods because access is sold in large, expensive chunks.
  • Lower and middle-income families would benefit from a small foothold in prosperous neighborhoods, but R1's prevalence means few are available.
  • R1 pushes prices beyond what many can afford and burdens many others by forcing them to buy more housing than they need.
  • In San Francisco, about 38% of residential land is R1, in Los Angeles, it is more than 70%, Seattle's is more than 80%, and San Jose's approaches 90%.
  • R1 inflates home values and protects the physical character of neighborhoods, but its social costs exceed these private benefits.
  • Policies that increase housing prices redistribute resources upward, increasing homeowner wealth, reducing renter real incomes, and exacerbating racial wealth gaps.
  • Prohibiting development in amenity-rich neighborhoods moves housing demand elsewhere, fueling gentrification and displacement, and increases commutes and emissions.
  • R1 is a classic collective action problem and an affront to social justice.
  • R1 is an institution planners created and protect.
  • Even bold zoning reform usually steers clear of R1.
  • Planners and planning documents often talk about R1 neighborhoods the way conservationists talk about manatees.
  • Zoning codes in Detroit and Milwaukee discuss "protecting" and "preserving" R1.
  • An explicit priority in Los Angeles's General Plan Framework Element is to "preserve single-family neighborhoods by focusing any growth away from them and into centers".
  • Arguments in favor of R1 are consistently weak.
  • The idea that most Americans prefer detached single-family homes is not obvious, as the prevalence of single-family living might be an artifact of constrained choice.
  • The goal is to end a mandate, not change a preference.
  • R1 is not problematic because it allows detached single-family homes, but because it does not allow anything else.
  • Where R1 is harmless, it is also unnecessary, but where it is necessary, it is also harmful.
  • Removing R1 could reduce rather than increase the prevalence of high-rise development.
  • Aesthetics matter, but R1 prevents some buildings many people consider attractive, does not prevent detached single-family homes that are unattractive, and has high social costs.
  • The idea that R1 neighborhoods are the only places families can thrive is not supported by theory or evidence and is a product of rank classism.
  • Planning language that singles out R1 as family-friendly implies that other areas are not.
  • Ending R1 does not solve every urban problem, but it is still necessary.
  • Without ending R1, the efficacy of other reforms would be limited.
  • Affordable housing policies will be far more powerful when more land is open to affordable housing development.
  • R1 is the easiest and most prevalent way cities can exclude.
  • Ending R1 risks evicting tenants in single-family homes, but this concern is not unique to upzoning R1.
  • Cities can and should attach strong renter protections to upzoning.
  • The American way of zoning is unique in promoting and protecting neighborhoods of detached single-family homes.
  • Valorization of detached single-family living embeds prejudice and bias into local zoning.
  • America's inefficient allocation of urban land creates unequal opportunities and unequal outcomes.
  • Certainty and stability are not sovereign virtues and must be weighed against their costs.
  • Ending R1 will be difficult but not impossible.
  • Minneapolis's 2019 General Plan includes a framework for ending R1, and Oregon's governor has proposed similar legislation.
  • Planners should not stand down in the face of a social harm simply because reform is unpopular.
  • Planners should help, if not lead, efforts to end R1 and to reverse the damage it has done.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Quiz Team

More Like This

Use Quizgecko on...
Browser
Open
Browser
Browser