Adrian Pietrzak
@zoningwonk.bsky.social
PhD student at Princeton studying urban politics and how to make our cities fairer and more affordable. He/him 🏳️🌈
apietrzak.org
apietrzak.org
Reposted by Adrian Pietrzak
The major impact:
On average, tracts on the North Side or downtown that were downzoned between 1970 and 1990 gained only 65 units between 1990 and 2010, while non-downzoned tracts gained 470 units on average, seven times as much.
This had cascading impacts on home prices and demographics.
On average, tracts on the North Side or downtown that were downzoned between 1970 and 1990 gained only 65 units between 1990 and 2010, while non-downzoned tracts gained 470 units on average, seven times as much.
This had cascading impacts on home prices and demographics.
November 26, 2025 at 8:35 PM
The major impact:
On average, tracts on the North Side or downtown that were downzoned between 1970 and 1990 gained only 65 units between 1990 and 2010, while non-downzoned tracts gained 470 units on average, seven times as much.
This had cascading impacts on home prices and demographics.
On average, tracts on the North Side or downtown that were downzoned between 1970 and 1990 gained only 65 units between 1990 and 2010, while non-downzoned tracts gained 470 units on average, seven times as much.
This had cascading impacts on home prices and demographics.
Also nice to see convergent evolution on this! Check out: bsky.app/profile/dbro...
NEW PAPER w/ @cselmendorf.bsky.social & @jkalla.bsky.social:
An under-appreciated reason why voters oppose dense new housing, especially in less-dense neighborhoods: they think it looks ugly and want to prevent that, even in other neighborhoods.
Some of what we think is NIMBYism might not be!
An under-appreciated reason why voters oppose dense new housing, especially in less-dense neighborhoods: they think it looks ugly and want to prevent that, even in other neighborhoods.
Some of what we think is NIMBYism might not be!
November 26, 2025 at 9:27 PM
Also nice to see convergent evolution on this! Check out: bsky.app/profile/dbro...
Full paper on my website: apietrzak.org
Adrian Pietrzak
apietrzak.org
November 26, 2025 at 9:05 PM
Full paper on my website: apietrzak.org
So, it seems the typical person does genuinely care about neighborhood character (in the innocuous, non-dog whistle sense), and getting people to support housing is probably not as simple as making it brick. Zoning for uniformity can backfire, making future densification hard!
November 26, 2025 at 9:05 PM
So, it seems the typical person does genuinely care about neighborhood character (in the innocuous, non-dog whistle sense), and getting people to support housing is probably not as simple as making it brick. Zoning for uniformity can backfire, making future densification hard!
We also found that support for policies like Bloomberg-style contextual rezonings and historic districting is very high, around ~83% support (second only to rent control, TOD). And it's not just NIMBYism: even supporters of a "high-rises anywhere" upzoning support those policies.
November 26, 2025 at 9:05 PM
We also found that support for policies like Bloomberg-style contextual rezonings and historic districting is very high, around ~83% support (second only to rent control, TOD). And it's not just NIMBYism: even supporters of a "high-rises anywhere" upzoning support those policies.
(We found basically the same effect if we told them the tall building would provide half a million in community benefits for a park.)
November 26, 2025 at 9:05 PM
(We found basically the same effect if we told them the tall building would provide half a million in community benefits for a park.)
We also tried to move people with tradeoffs. We had them chose between these two buildings. Without tradeoffs, ~75% chose the top building. When we said their taxes would need to up, 12% fewer chose it, but that's still over 60% willing to pay taxes for the top building.
November 26, 2025 at 9:05 PM
We also tried to move people with tradeoffs. We had them chose between these two buildings. Without tradeoffs, ~75% chose the top building. When we said their taxes would need to up, 12% fewer chose it, but that's still over 60% willing to pay taxes for the top building.
We also asked people if they'd show up to a meeting to voice their support/opposition. We found increase in intent to attend a meeting *only* for the building that "sticks out," especially among self-proclaimed frequent local voters. There are your neighborhood NIMBYs
November 26, 2025 at 9:05 PM
We also asked people if they'd show up to a meeting to voice their support/opposition. We found increase in intent to attend a meeting *only* for the building that "sticks out," especially among self-proclaimed frequent local voters. There are your neighborhood NIMBYs
Changing the style of a taller building to fit the style of the surrounding shorter buildings had nearly no effect! We also found that these effects were nearly identical for renters, homeowners, suburbanites, urbanites, and by PID and race. Caring about fit is widely held!
November 26, 2025 at 9:05 PM
Changing the style of a taller building to fit the style of the surrounding shorter buildings had nearly no effect! We also found that these effects were nearly identical for renters, homeowners, suburbanites, urbanites, and by PID and race. Caring about fit is widely held!
What's driving this effect? It's mostly height. In the treatment group, people did prefer traditional brick buildings, but the effect was very small (~2pp). But people really don't like when buildings are taller than their surroundings.
November 26, 2025 at 9:05 PM
What's driving this effect? It's mostly height. In the treatment group, people did prefer traditional brick buildings, but the effect was very small (~2pp). But people really don't like when buildings are taller than their surroundings.
We compare support against the *same buildings* w/ and w/out context. Buildings that "stick out" in style and height are penalized, and buildings which "fit" in both are rewarded. People don't have fixed preferences over housing. Preferences change depending on context!
November 26, 2025 at 9:05 PM
We compare support against the *same buildings* w/ and w/out context. Buildings that "stick out" in style and height are penalized, and buildings which "fit" in both are rewarded. People don't have fixed preferences over housing. Preferences change depending on context!
How about when people are given neighborhood context? We showed the other half of our sample the same buildings but with neighborhood context (two traditional historic neighborhoods: UWS - shown below - and Lincoln Park, Chicago).
November 26, 2025 at 9:05 PM
How about when people are given neighborhood context? We showed the other half of our sample the same buildings but with neighborhood context (two traditional historic neighborhoods: UWS - shown below - and Lincoln Park, Chicago).
What did we find? People hate tall buildings (not surprising). Style had very little impact (we found that surprising). If anything, people actually liked modern, black and white rainscreen cladded buildings *more*!
November 26, 2025 at 9:05 PM
What did we find? People hate tall buildings (not surprising). Style had very little impact (we found that surprising). If anything, people actually liked modern, black and white rainscreen cladded buildings *more*!
First, we wanted to know, in abstract, how does support for buildings change as height and style change? We ran a survey and assigned half our sample to a 'control' arm where they were asked about buildings without any context of where they'd go:
November 26, 2025 at 9:05 PM
First, we wanted to know, in abstract, how does support for buildings change as height and style change? We ran a survey and assigned half our sample to a 'control' arm where they were asked about buildings without any context of where they'd go: