Unfortunately, not everyone who is inclined to live close to plentiful job opportunities, conveniences and culture — without the need for a daily drive down congested freeways or to water a large yard — gets to do so. A morass of regulations stands in the way.
We live in Arlington, Va., across the Potomac River from Washington. Parts of Arlington look like a typical affluent, leafy suburb, but near most of the county’s Metro stations, high-rises are permitted. Our neighborhood includes apartment buildings of every variety, as well as townhouses and exorbitantly expensive detached single-family houses.
Arlington differs from many parts of the United States, where suburban jurisdictions strictly limit development to detached single-family housing. Planning regulations also generally layer minimum lot size requirements on top of this use zoning, forcing people to spread out further than many would otherwise do.
Why is Arlington different? Starting in the 1970s, its policymakers decided to adopt transit-oriented development, allowing dense residential and commercial uses in the areas served by Metrorail expansion. While this may seem like common-sense urban planning, few U.S. suburbs of high-income coastal cities have chosen this path. For example, dead retail developments in the Bay Area sit decaying because zoning and permit approval processes prevent high-rise residential redevelopment. In Arlington, these sites are frequently repurposed for dense housing.
For my family, the biggest advantage of our high-density neighborhood is time saved. My office is a 15-minute walk from our condo, and our kids’ pediatrician's and dentist’s offices are about halfway in between. I often get a kid to a morning appointment before heading into the office, all without needing to fight with any car seats. We’re a walk or bike ride away from all kinds of playgrounds and museums, and we have plenty of time to visit them because we don’t need to do any yard work and our house is easy to maintain.
My kids are all under age four, but I anticipate continuing to live in a walkable neighborhood as they grow up. I believe the benefits will only increase as they gain independence. God willing, we’ll one day see our pediatrician with less regularity, but as our kids reach an age when they can visit the park, the movie theater or a diner with friends, they’ll be able to do these things independently on foot, bike or transit.
Plenty of families with kids have different priorities, choosing neighborhoods with big houses and yards instead of prioritizing walkability for plenty of good reasons. However, in many parts of the country, walkability isn't available at any price.
Since the advent of zoning rules in the United States, advocates for land-use regulations have promoted density restrictions as beneficial for children. More space offers plenty of advantages, it’s true. However, it can mean having few or no destinations within walking distance. And with adults having fewer kids than in the past, kids who live in single-family neighborhoods might not have a single playmate nearby.
The costs of low-density development fall hardest on people who can’t drive, including everyone under 16, delaying their ability to go places independently. It’s no accident that Lenore Skenazy, founder of the Free-Range Kids movement, raised her own kids in New York City.
Ultimately, with so many U.S. cities and suburbs skewing development toward low-density homes, families that want housing in dense, walkable development must pay a premium for what little is allowed to be built. In a study using the popular “Walk Score” algorithm, which measures the type and quantity of destinations within walking distance of any U.S. address, a co-author and I found that homebuyers are willing to pay that premium.
Other research shows similar strength in the demand for walkable housing, including a set of survey findings comparing residents of Boston (where many neighborhoods were developed prior to the imposition of zoning regulations and a wide range of neighborhood types is available) and Atlanta (where a much larger share of development has been shaped by density and use restrictions). In Boston, 83 percent of the people with the strongest preference for walkability live in a neighborhood that’s at least somewhat walkable. In Atlanta, that number is just 48 percent, undoubtedly revealing the presence of a lot of families excluded from their preferred lifestyle.
This imbalance between consumer preferences and the built environment doesn’t have to persist. If more localities follow Arlington’s path and allow for a wide variety of housing types, people who want to trade private space for community amenities would have the choice to do so. And, as more families choose city living, those who prefer a big house in the suburbs will have less competition for existing homes.
Governing’s opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing’s editors or management.
