The Case for Mass Upzoning

Abstract

Murray and Gordon argue against mass upzonings that are unaccompanied by value capture tools based on the grounds that (a) cities are giving away valuable public air rights to private property owners when undertaking mass upzoning and thus (b) cities should employ value-capture policies to avoid complete privatization of public air rights. I first add a cautionary note that development of value capture strategies must be grounded in country-specific political, cultural, and legal contexts. To spark further scholarly and policy debates, I develop two propositions in response to the article. First, I contend that mass rezoning may be justifiable in the United States even if this means valuable public air rights are privatized. Second, I posit that mass rezoning is not only justifiable but also one of the most cost-effective and least risky policy solutions for tackling housing affordability and supply challenges in the United States. I conclude by suggesting directions for future research on upzoning and value capture.

Keywords:

• Upzoning
• value capture
• rezoning
• land use/zoning
• housing supply

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Minjee Kim

Minjee Kim is an assistant professor at Florida State University’s Department of Urban and Regional Planning. She earned her PhD and master’s degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has multiple years of experience working in local governments including the cities of Boston and Cambridge. She studies the relationship between real estate development and urban planning and writes about land value capture, large-scale real estate developments, exactions, negotiated developments, and equitable growth. She strives to identify how planners and policymakers can harness the forces of real estate development to further progressive planning values and encourage equitable development outcomes.