Urban housing shortages are often worsened by zoning and land-use laws that restrict new construction. While legal reforms like removing parking mandates or allowing more units per lot have been suggested, it's unclear which changes actually boost housing supply the most. Identifying the most effective reforms could help policymakers, planners, and advocates prioritize actions that truly alleviate housing crises.
One way to determine the best legal changes would be to systematically compare their impacts. This could involve:
The goal would be to create a ranked list showing which reforms typically lead to the most new housing units, helping stakeholders focus on high-impact changes.
Different groups might find this analysis valuable:
Since all these groups already want more housing (for different reasons), they'd likely support or use research that clarifies which legal changes deliver results.
A simpler version could begin by just analyzing a few well-documented cases where single reforms were implemented separately. For example, comparing housing growth before and after parking requirement changes in 3-4 cities could provide initial insights without needing a massive study. This scaled-down approach might quickly show whether certain reforms consistently outperform others.
Hours To Execute (basic)
Hours to Execute (full)
Estd No of Collaborators
Financial Potential
Impact Breadth
Impact Depth
Impact Positivity
Impact Duration
Uniqueness
Implementability
Plausibility
Replicability
Market Timing
Project Type
Research