Everything’s Bigger in (Houston) Texas, but is it Better?: Questioning an Overly Simplistic View of Land Use Controls and Their Effect on Rent

In the 21^st century, two of the leading causes in the field of urban planning are affordable housing and sustainability.  These two objectives are closely linked in that cities typically have a lower environmental impact per capita, but cannot attract more people to these “green” environments if they are unaffordable.  Could it be that planners and their zoning policies are actually a hindrance to the affordable housing and sustainability movements?  According to a few Harvard planners, our cities would be better off if they were less like New York City and more like Houston.

A 2009 policy brief by two Harvard planning professors, argues that excessive land use policy can block development and drive up rents (economics 101).  The policy brief implies that high-rent cities are poorly managed and will not allow for growth unless land use controls are reduced.

Harvard economist and urban theorist Edward Glaeser, in his recent planning best seller, The Triumph of the City, presented the same argument.  Glaeser points to the lack of zoning as the reason that rents are comparatively low in Houston.  But is the solution to have less zoning and charge developers a one-time fee (as Glaeser suggests) to cover the negative externalities (congestion, reduced light, etc.) that would be imposed on neighbors.  I have my doubts.  What do you think?