CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 92Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesUrban Planning and GovernanceEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities

Exclusionary Zoning: Origins, Open Suburbs, and Contemporary Debates

Whittemore, Andrew H.·2021·Journal of the American Planning Association
DOI 10.1080/01944363.2020.1828146
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings In light of recent debate over upzonings and leveraging markets as means of expanding housing opportunity, I review the evolution of exclusionary zoning practices in the United States and provide an intellectual history of scholars’ research into these practices. In the context of early 20th-century racial and class tension, American elites coveted the ability to use the states’ police powers to sort out cities by housing type and gained this ability with legislative and judicial support for local land use zoning schemes that controlled residential densities and building forms. Many 20th-century U.S. planners upheld the resulting socially sorted city as an ideal outcome of good zoning practice. But in the postwar decades, a new breed of equity-focused advocacy planner sought to address racial ghettoization by using zoning reforms and other measures to open exclusive areas to low- and moderate-income housing. Wider shifts in housing policy since the 1970s and the increasing attention of economic scholarship to the myriad impacts of American zoning practices have, however, diluted the original equity-focused agenda of exclusionary zoning scholarship.Takeaway for practice Given the need for a common effort against business-as-usual zoning in the United States, planners can assert the ethics of the planning profession in debates about American zoning practices. Scholarly and professional efforts to dismantle exclusionary zoning can return to their roots in housing advocacy, becoming one part of a multipronged agenda aimed at expanding housing opportunity by a variety of means.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01944363.2020.1828146

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 105 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Whittemore, A. H.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Whittemore, Andrew H.
ORCID
Whittemore, Andrew H.
Venue
Journal of the American Planning Association
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-11-05
Volume
87
Issue
2
Pages
167-180
ISSN
  • 0194-4363 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0130
DOI
10.1080/01944363.2020.1828146
OpenAlex
W3094875733
Cited by
92
References
105
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9
FWCI
12.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Planning Association (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Planning and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
Keywords
exclusionary zoning, land use zoning, upzoning, housing opportunities, racial segregation, zoning reform, low- and moderate-income housing, housing advocacy, housing density

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review