Skip to main content

Planning, Housing Supply and Affordable Development in the USA

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Urban Planning and the Housing Market

Abstract

This chapter examines changing tensions between housing and urban policy in the USA, where restrictive local planning systems emerged as a mechanism for suburban “exclusion” over the early- and mid-twentieth century, exacerbating socio-spatial divides. Proceeding from this overview, the chapter explains contemporary different housing roles of the Federal government, states and local authorities in the US and the key forms of housing assistance through rental vouchers, public housing and tax credits to incentivize low-cost rental housing development and provision. It then outlines a range of planning system approaches for affordable housing, proceeding from “anti-snob” policies in states such as Massachusetts, where the original laws to overcome local resistance to affordable housing development in suburban neighbourhoods were passed in 1969 (known as section 40B). Other approaches explained include voluntary and mandatory inclusionary zoning schemes, which require a proportion of housing be set aside for affordable rental or home purchase; density bonuses for affordable housing provision, protective mechanisms and impact fees to preserve affordable housing or offset its loss. These provisions have evolved over time and are now used in conjunction with new policies to encourage “smart growth” and renewal through densification around public transit. The concluding section of the chapter considers recent directions in US housing policy since the sub-prime mortgage market collapse and the GFC, including questions about the sustainability of home ownership for low-income households and the potential for a new housing crisis as ageing baby boomers abandon car-dependent suburbia for high-amenity inner city and lifestyle regions.

This chapter is authored by Kirk McClure, Nicole Gurran, Glen Bramley.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Basolo, V., & Scally, C. P. (2008). State innovations in affordable housing policy: Lessons from California and New Jersey. Housing Policy Debate, 19, 741–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennefield, R., & Bonnette, R. (2003). Structural and occupancy characteristics of housing: 2000 census 2000 brief. Washington: US Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratt, R. G. (2008). Nonprofit and for‐profit developers of subsidized rental housing: Comparative attributes and collaborative opportunities. Housing Policy Debate, 19(2), 323–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratt, R. G., & Vladeck, A. (2014). Addressing restrictive zoning for affordable housing: Experiences in four states. Housing Policy Debate, 24(3), 594–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calavita, N., Grimes, K., & Mallach, A. (1997). Inclusionary housing in California and New Jersey: A comparative analysis. Housing Policy Debate, 8(1), 109–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calavita, N., Mallach, A., & Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. (2010). Inclusionary housing in international perspective: Affordable housing, social inclusion, and land value recapture. Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Housing Policy. (2014). National Inventory of Inclusionary Housing Programs. Cambridge: Centre for Housing Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Transit Oriented Development. (2009). Mixed-income housing near transit. Oakland: US Department of Transportation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chevan, A. (1989). The growth of home ownership: 1940–1980. Demography, 26, 249–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, S. M. (2006). Anti-snob land use laws, suburban exclusion, and housing opportunity. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(3), 295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullingworth, B., & Caves, R. (2014). Planning in the USA, policies, issues and processes (4th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Housing and Community Development. (2014). DHCD chapter 40B subsidized housing inventory. Boston: Department of Housing and Community Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2015). Worst Case Housing Needs 2015 Report to Congress. Washington: HUD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischel, W. A. (2004). An economic history of zoning and a cure for its exclusionary effects. Urban Studies, 41(2), 317–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton, W. (1991). Guide to California planning. Point Arena, CA: Solano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. L., Gyourko, J., & Saks, R. E. (2005). Why have housing prices gone up? American Economic Review, 95(2), 329–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurran, N. (2011). Australian urban land use planning: Principles, systems and practice. Sydney: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. (1996). Cities of tomorrow. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanlon, J. (2010). Success by design: HOPE VI, new urbanism, and the neoliberal transformation of public housing in the US. Environment and Planning A, 42(1), 80–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hersey, J., & Spotts, M. A. (2015). Promoting Opportunity through Equitable Transit-Oriented Development. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Congress for the New Urbanism Conference: Meeting the Demand for Walkable Places, Dallas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, R. (2013). After the downturn: New challenges and opportunities for inclusionary housing. Washington, DC: Center for Housing Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karki, T. K. (2015). Mandatory versus incentive-based state zoning reform policies for affordable housing in the United States: A comparative assessment. Housing Policy Debate, 25(2), 234–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneteiz, S. P. (1979). Low- and moderate-income housing in the suburbs: The Massachusetts “anti-snob” law experience. Policy Studies Journal, 8(2), 288–299. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1979.tb01580.

  • Krigman, Y. (2010). The Role of Community Development Corporations in Affordable Housing. Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, 19(2), 231–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J. D., & Mcclure, K. (2010). Rethinking federal housing policy. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76, 319–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcuse, P. (1980). Housing in early city planning. Journal of Urban History, 6(2), 153.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann, J. (2006). Pushing growth share: Can inclusionary zoning fix what is broken with New Jersey’s Mount Laurel doctrine? Rutgers Law Review, 59(1), 191–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micallef, J. (2011). Affordable Housing Impact Fee (internal minute). Berkeley: City of Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, A. C. (2013). Reshaping metropolitan America: Development trends and opportunities to 2030. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pendall, R. (1999). Opposition to housing - NIMBY and beyond. Urban Affairs Review, 35(1), 112–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, S., & Enderle, B. E. (2012). Examining spatial patters in affordable housing: The case of California density bonus implementation. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 27, 413–425. doi:10.1007/s10901-011-9259-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schill, M. C., & Wachter, S. M. (1995). Housing market constraints and spatial stratification by income and race. Housing Policy Debate, 6(1), 141–167. doi:10.1080/10511482.1995.9521184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schively, C. (2007). Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(3), 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuetz, J. (2009). No renters in my suburban backyard: Land use regulation and rental housing. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(2), 296–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, A. (2015). Housing policy in the US. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiebout, C. M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hoffman, A. (2009). Housing and planning: A century of social reform and local power. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(2), 231–244. doi:10.1080/01944360902774087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verrilli, A., & Raitt, J. (2009). The Use of Chapter 40R in Massachusetts as a Tool for Smart Growth and Affordable Housing Production. Boston: Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/hed/docs/dhcd/cd/ch40r/theuseofch40rin-ma.pdf.

  • Wiener, R. J., & Barton, S. E. (2014). The underpinnings of inclusionary housing in California: Current practice and emerging market and legal challenges. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 29(3), 403–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

McClure, K., Gurran, N., Bramley, G. (2017). Planning, Housing Supply and Affordable Development in the USA. In: Urban Planning and the Housing Market. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46403-3_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics