A Case of (Decreasing) American Exceptionalism: Single-Family Zoning in the United States, Australia, and Canada

Andrew H. Whittemore and William Curran-Groome

Journal of the American Planning Association, 2022, vol. 88, issue 3, 335-351

Abstract: Problem, research strategy, and findingsToday, the United States stands alone among high-wealth countries in its copious use of exclusive zoning for single-family detached homes (single-family zoning, SFZ). Australia and Canada, however, are two countries that mirrored U.S. practices through the mid-20th century, and these countries still have SFZ, though it is less widespread today. We theorized reasons for the United States’ divergence in a review of histories and other studies from the three countries. We observed that when fiscal, affordability, and environmental concerns took hold globally in the 1970s, Australian and Canadian governments addressed these issues in part by opening single-family areas to more housing types, whereas nearly all U.S. governments left SFZ unchallenged. We show here how historical racial composition and prejudice in the United States, though long intertwined with zoning practices, began to distinguish American residential zoning practice from its Canadian and Australian counterparts at this time, explaining that American planners faced revanchism in the wake of civil rights legislation and White flight. A recent flurry of reform in the United States, however, indicates that U.S. residential zoning practices are reconverging with those in Australia and Canada.Takeaway for practiceObserving how American zoning paralleled and then diverged from its Australian and Canadian counterparts has revealed another way in which U.S. racial composition and prejudice have distinguished the climate of planning in the United States. We also demonstrate how a more equitable way of zoning, one that opens more urban land to housing mixture, can provide a basis for building more sustainable cities in the United States. As American zoning begins to reconverge with its Australian and Canadian counterparts, U.S. planners can look to these countries to understand the potential and limits of undoing SFZ in pursuit of environmental, fiscal, and housing goals.

Date: 2022
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01944363.2021.1985591 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:88:y:2022:i:3:p:335-351

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/rjpa20

DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2021.1985591

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of the American Planning Association is currently edited by Sandi Rosenbloom

More articles in Journal of the American Planning Association from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().