When people picture American cities today, they often imagine endless suburbia, soulless downtowns, and 26-lane highway cutting through the city. However, it was not always like this. Cities, big and small, across the United States used to be filled with gorgeous architecture and expansive transit systems until around the early twentieth century. So what went wrong? The answer is deliberate government interference. Rather than unlocking the development of new homes, the US experience shows that, contrary to the opinions of some British commentators, zoning laws and regulations have limited construction in areas where it is needed the most.
Since the 1920s, zoning has been weaponised to maintain higher property values. The trend began in Cleveland, which was then booming thanks to its iron, steel and shipbuilding industries, accompanied by a huge population growth. In the suburb of Euclid, the Ambler Reality Corporation wanted to build new apartments for new residents. Fearing the influx of working-class residents, often African-American, the suburb of Euclid passed a law banning the construction of anything other than single-family detached homes. This aimed to maintain high property values and exclude working-class, often minority, residents.
Ambler Reality objected not on the grounds of racism but because the zoning law reduced the value of the land by limiting its use. It took its case all the way to the US Supreme Court, arguing the City violated the US constitution’s 14th amendment – which guarantees due process – by effectively taking away its property without compensation. Euclid argued that this was not the case and the Supreme Court agreed. This paved the way for many other cities to use zoning not only as a tool for discrimination, but also to push up property prices.
The destructive effects of poor zoning regulations continued into the early post-war era. The common saying ‘American cities were built for cars’ is misleading – they were in fact bulldozed to accommodate cars, often at a great urban and social cost. During the thirties, a group of auto interests began lobbying for a public-funded national highway project which became reality with the 1956 Highway Act – the largest public works project in American history.
While they knitted the country together, the consequences were deeply regressive. The highways were driven straight through vibrant, minority and working-class neighbourhoods, displacing over one million people. One striking example is Overtown, Miami. Once a thriving black neighbourhood known as the Harlem of the South, Overtown was razed in the sixties to make room for the I-95. Those displaced had few options, once again due to exclusionary zoning. Meanwhile, wealthy (often white) people used these highways to commute to work from the suburbs, only to leave at night, contributing to the social hollowing-out of downtown areas.
Today, nearly a century after Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co, Americans still feel the consequences of these practices. Because of illogical zoning regulations, apartments are banned in over 70% of residential areas in major U.S. cities. Even if you wanted to turn a run-down factory into an apartment building, it would still be illegal in most areas. This not only drives up prices, but has other consequences.
Contrary to the claim that ‘greedy developers’ are the ones to blame, homelessness is largely a result of unaffordable housing. For example, the state of Mississippi, where land-use is less regulated, reports a homelessness rate of 3.5 per 10,000 people. By contrast, New York, one of the most regulated states, has a staggering 79.5 per 10,000 people. This is despite New York being a far wealthier state – its GDP per capita stands at $117,000 compared to Mississippi’s $53,000.
By halting any development in the city centres, zoning regulations have forced many urban workers to live in distant suburbs and commute via the highways. Since urban planning was geared towards the car, public transportation was not built because few lived downtown and urban sprawl meant that cities lacked the population density to make public transport projects financially viable. Additionally, the city centres were not pedestrian-friendly with small pavements, six-lane streets and minimal green space.
Finally, zoning has exacerbated racial divides in US cities. Chicago is a stark example, where the predominantly black south and west sides are economically and geographically cut off compared to the white north side. This divide was not incidental but was engineered through exclusionary zoning and infrastructure development. When the jobs moved out of the city centre to the suburbs, those poor and minority communities were left behind – often with very little transit or housing options. This resulted in high unemployment, crime, community instability which we still see today.
While this may all seem quite discouraging for the future of US cities, there are many ways to rectify past mistakes. The first and most obvious step is to remove these oppressive zoning and housing regulations. By facilitating a greater supply of homes in inner-city areas, this would help to lower housing costs and reduce the incentives for greater urban sprawl.
Indeed, there is evidence that US states with less restrictive land-use policies have been more effective at building new homes. Texas, for example, now allows housing on commercial land, has legalised the construction of six-story single-stair buildings, and has enabled smaller starter home lots. Its capital, Austin, which experienced a population boom, saw a surge in build-to-rent supply and falling rents – proof that allowing more housing leads to lower costs. This places Texas far above over regulated states like New York in addressing the housing crisis.
Second, to help reconnect city neighbourhoods separated by highways decades ago, cities should invest in public transportation, bike lanes, and better sidewalks. This would also help get people off the roads and reduce negative externalities like pollution and congestion. The removal of highways, or the construction of highway caps, could also help to reverse some of this damage.
Thankfully, many US cities are starting to learn from their past mistakes and are changing their ways. Some cities, such as New York or Boston, kept their cores intact and other cities are using them as examples of what to become. Zoning reforms to allow denser housing are underway in cities across the United States and the funding for public transportation is gradually increasing.
While aspects of the American case study are unique, it still offers lessons for other countries, including the UK. While zoning may seem attractive on paper as a solution to the UK’s housing crisis, the American experience shows that it can be just as open to abuse as anything seen this side of the Atlantic.
Alex Vandevoorde is a Member of Bright Blue. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Bright Blue.