Smart growth proponents suggest that the housing needs of low-income households can be better met by neighbourhoods of greater density, a greater variety of housing types and mixed land use than by neighbourhoods dominated by low-density, single-family homes. This research tests these relationships in two regions: one with and one without urban containment policies. The research provides evidence that neighbourhoods with a greater variety of housing types and residential density have a greater quantity of units affordable to very low-income renters and, at the same time, a greater quantity of units that are not affordable. An implication of the findings is that planners and growth management advocates should specify goals of housing types, in addition to density targets, when creating or updating comprehensive plans for future growth.

Growth management states in the USA, such as Florida, Oregon, and Washington, require their local jurisdictions to plan for an adequate supply of housing for all current and future residents, including low-income households. This research uses regression analysis to test the relationship between the strength of local comprehensive plans toward affordable housing and subsequent changes in housing affordability for low-income households. Semi-structured interviews with local planners about their perceptions of the efficacy of local plans provide insight into the quantitative findings. The initial plans passed after Florida's Growth Management Act were not associated with subsequent changes in housing affordability, but more recent plans were. Planners in a number of jurisdictions indicated that Florida's planning mandate increased awareness among public officials of affordable housing issues and the tools available to address them, despite the state's weak oversight.

The costs of sprawl are well documented, but there are fewer studies of its potential benefits. One such benefit is argued to be the facilitation of the filtering process, resulting in a greater quantity of affordable and available housing for low-income households. While metropolitan area data indicate a positive correlation between sprawl and the supply of affordable housing for very low-income households, regression analysis does not provide evidence for this hypothesis, after controlling for other metropolitan characteristics. The results put into question the argument that sprawl expands housing opportunities for households of all incomes, specifically those who are the poorest.

No abstract