Density Zoning and Class Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas^*

Abstract

Objectives Socioeconomic segregation rose substantially in U.S. cities during the final decades of the 20th century and we argue zoning regulations are an important cause for this increase. Methods We measure neighborhood economic segregation using the Gini Coefficient for neighborhood income inequality and the poor-affluent exposure index. These outcomes are regressed on an index of density zoning developed from the work of Pendall for 50 U.S. metropolitan areas, while controlling for other metropolitan characteristics likely to affect urban housing markets and class segregation. Results For both 2000 and changes from 1990 to 2000, OLS estimates reveal a strong relationship between density zoning and income segregation, and replication using 2SLS suggests that the relationship is causal. We also show that zoning is associated with higher inter-jurisdictional inequality. Conclusions Metropolitan areas with suburbs that restrict the density of residential construction are more segregated on the basis of income than those with more permissive density zoning regimes. This arrangement perpetuates and exacerbates racial and class inequality in the United States.

Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income?

“…Echoing previous research (Rothwell & Massey, 2010), we also find that density restrictions are associated with higher-income segregation, and should be relaxed where possible. However, density restrictions appear to lead to the segregation of the affluent, not the poor, which go against assumptions that connect density restrictions to the exclusion of the poor from suburban jurisdictions.…”

“…The most recent and germane study on this topic is by Rothwell and Massey (2010). In an analysis of 50 metropolitan areas, Rothwell and Massey use survey data developed by Pendall, Puentes, and Martin (2006) to measure land use regulation and measures of income segregation.…”

“…In this study we improve upon Rothwell and Massey (2010) with a new source of data on land use regulation (Gyourko et al, 2008) and new measures of income segregation (Reardon & O’Sullivan, 2004) across 95 metropolitan areas in 2000 and 2010. These new measures and data sources allow for a rich investigation: We have comprehensive detail on the nature of land use regulations, and we can measure income segregation for different income groups to identify effects on the segregation of the rich and the segregation of the poor, separately.…”

“…Scholars (Mills & Hamilton, 1997; Pendall, 2000), planners (APA, 2006) and the popular press (Applebaum, 2012; Thompson, 2014) argue that regulations such as minimum lot sizes and growth controls make jurisdictions more socioeconomically homogeneous and metropolitan areas more segregated. Yet, we identify only one existing study on the topic (Rothwell & Massey, 2010). …”

The Tradeoffs of Inclusionary Zoning: What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know?

“…Critics argue that zoning constrains development, restricts the supply of housing and raises housing costs (Glaeser & Gyourko, 2002;Ihlanfeldt, 2004). Scholars also argue that zoning requirements make it difficult to develop affordable housing for poor households (Davidoff & Davidoff, 1971), and increase racial and class segregation (Rothwell & Massey, 2010). Nonetheless, zoning has strong support, particularly among homeowners and local government officials, and persists (Fischel, 2001(Fischel, , 2004.…”