Abstract
In the U.S., typically, poor and minority households are concentrated in central cities, which are ringed by middle class suburbs which contain a majority of the population of the metropolitan area. The resulting segregation is largely the outcome of public policy and institutional arrangements, rather than the excesses of a free market.
Land use regulations have played a central role in creating segregation among the types of housing that are affordable to different income groups. Single family only zoning is a central institution in suburban areas; often multifamily housing is limited to a very tiny portion of the land zoned for housing.
Land use policies regarding housing are formulated on a municipal level, in which states have only a minimal role and the federal government has no role. Decentralization of revenue sources and fiscal support for local services, including education, provides incentives for local zoning policies which exclude groups which are viewed as more costly to service, while decentralization of zoning powers make these policies possible. This article describes 1) the basic contours of the housing stock and population distribution in metropolitan areas, 2) the evolution of the single family only policy, and 3) recent efforts to counteract housing segregation patterns, which have had little success.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adkins V. Children's Hospital (1923) 261 U.S. 525 (U.S. Supreme (Court).
Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing (1991).“Not In My Back Yard” Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development.
Ambler Realty Co. v. City of Euclid (1924) 297 F. 307 (U.S. Federal District Court).
Aronovici, C. (1913) “Constructive Housing Reform”,National Municipal Review (2).
Baldwin, F.S. (1900)The Housing Problem, Boston: Twetieth Century Club.
Bender, T. (1975)Toward an Urban Vision, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Brett v. Building Commissioner of Brookline (1924) 250 Mass. 73; 145 N.E. 269, 271 (Massachusetts Supreme Court).
Byrne v. Maryland Realty Co. (1916) 98 A.2d. 547, 549 (Maryland Court of Appeals).
Center for Urban Policy Research (April 1996)State of the Nation's Cities, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Research.
City of Bismarck v. Hughes (1926) 208 N.W. 711 (Supreme Court of North Dakota).
City of Youngstown v. Kahn Bros. Bldg. Co. (1925) 148 N.E. 842 (Ohio Supreme Court).
Congressional Budget Office (1981)The Tax Treatment of Homeownership: Issues and Options, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't. Printing Office.
Danielson, M. (1976) “Exclusion and the Courts”,The Politics of Exclusion (Ch. 7), New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
DeForest, R. (1914) “Brief History of the Housing Movement in America”,Annals of the American Academy of Political Science (51), no. 140, pp. 9–16.
DeForest, R., and L. Veiller (1903)The Tenement House Problem, New York: MacMillan Co.
Downs, A. (1994)New Visions for Metropolitan America, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute.
Euclid v. Ambler (1926) 272 U.S. 365 (U.S. Supreme Court).
Ford, S. (1913) “Some Fundamantals of Housing Reform”,American City (8), pp. 473–480.
Fremont California Municipal Code, Sec. 8-22552.
Gold and Davidoff (1968) “The Supply and Availability of Land for Housing for Low- and Moderate-Income Families”,Report of the President's Committee on Urban Housing (Technical Studies, Vol. II) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't. Printing Office.
Gould, E.R.L. (1894)The Slums of Baltimore, Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia, Washington D.C.: U.S. Gov't. Printing Office.
Housing and Home Finance Administration (Oct. 1952)Housing Research.
Jackson, K. (1985) “Federal Subsidy and the Suburban Dream: How Washington Changed the American Housing Market”,Crabrrass Frontier, Ch. 11, New York:Oxford University Press.
James v. Valtierra (1971) 402 U.S. 137 (U.S. Supreme Court).
Jarsey Land Co. v. Scott (1924) 126 A.2d. 123 (New Jersey Supreme Court).
Killam, C.W. (1913) “The Relation of a State-Wide Building Code to Housing and Town Planning”,Architectural Quarterly of Harvard University (2), no. 2, pp. 29–35.
Kushner, J. (1995)Fair Housing, Colorado Springs, Colorado: Shepard's/McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Miller v. Board of Public Works (1925) 195 Cal. 477; 234 P. 381 (California Supreme Court).
National Commission on Urban Problems (1968)Building the American City (House Doc. No. 91-34, 91st Congress, 1st Sess.).
National Housing Association Proceedings (1913).
Octavia Hill Ass'n (1902) “Certain Aspects of the Housing Problem in Philadelphia”,Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (20), no. 1, pp. 111–120.
Paine, R. (1902) “Housing Conditions in Boston”,Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (20), no 1, pp. 121–136.
Philpott, T.L. (1978) “The Housing Movement, 1893–1917: The Limits of Restrictive Reform”, inThe Slum and the Ghetto, New York: Oxford University Press).
Perrin, C. (1977)Everything in Its Place, Princeton, N.J.: Princteon Univ. Press.
Plotkin, S. (1987)Keep Out The Struggle for Land Use Control, Chapters 5–6, University of California.
Pogodzinski (1991) “The Effects of Fiscal and Exclusionary Zoning on Household Location: A Critical Review”,Journal of Housing Research (2), no. 2, pp. 145–160.
Report of the President's Commission on Housing (1982), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't. Printing Office.
Schafer, R. (1974)The Suburbanization of Multifamily Housing, Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Scribner's Monthly (1874) “The New Homes of New York”,Scribner's Monthly (7), no. 1, pp. 63–76.
South Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mt. Laurel (1975) 67 N.J. 151, 336 A.2d. 713) and (1983) 92 N.J. 158; 456 A.2d. 390.
Tenth National Conference on City Planning (1918).
U.S. Department Commerce, Advisory Committee on City Planning (1922)A Standard Zoning Enabling Act, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Commerce.
U.S. Industrial Commission (1901)Immigration, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't. Printing Office.
Veiller, L. (1914) “Protecting Residential Districts”,American City (10), no. 6, p. 3.
Veiller, L. (1916)Eighth National Conference on City Planning
Weiss, M. (1987)The Rise of the Community Builders, New York: Columbia University Press.
Additional information
Kenneth K. Baar is a attorney in the Berkeley, California and has a Ph.D. in urban planning. From 1991 to 1993, he was a Fulbright professor at the Budapest University of Economic Sciences. In 1994–95 he was visiting professor in the Urban Planning Department at Columbia University in New York City.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baar, K.K. The anti-apartment movement in the U.S. and the role of land use regulations in creating housing segregation. Neth J of Housing and the Built Environment 11, 359–379 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02497492
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02497492