The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
New Zealand's YIMBY Success - And How We Can Learn From it
New Zealand alleviated a severe housing shortage by liberalizing regulations that had previously blocked most new construction.

The United States is far from the only country that has experienced serious housing shortages in recent years. Canada, Britain, and several continental European nations also have similar problems. But one country, New Zealand, has managed to significantly mitigate theirs through the simple expedient of cutting back on zoning regulations that previously severely restricted the construction of new housing.
Economic policy commentator Joseph Politano describes how they did it:
New Zealand has a horrendous, long-standing housing shortage—roughly a quarter of Kiwis are cost-burdened (defined as spending more than 40% of their income on rent or mortgage payments), the highest rate among all OECD countries. The vast majority of the archipelago's housing stock is low-density—more than 80% of residents live in detached single-family homes, 20 percentage points higher than even in the highly suburbanized United States. Auckland, New Zealand's largest city, has been consistently rated as one of the most expensive places on earth, with home prices significantly outpacing household incomes….
This story should sound familiar to most Americans, and indeed to people across the world who face increasingly dire housing affordability crises in their countries and cities. Many will blame those housing shortages on zoning restrictions and exclusionary planning rules that prevent sufficient housing construction—in the US, most residential areas are designated exclusively for large, sprawling single-family homes, even within major cities,…. Theoretically, if rules were changed to allow taller and denser developments on desirable land—a process known as upzoning—housing production would increase and affordability would improve….
The difference is that Auckland has actually put that theory to practice—the 2016 Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) upzoned 3/4 of the city's residential land to legalize townhouses, terraced homes, or multi-story apartments in areas that previously only allowed detached single-family homes,…. This makes Auckland perhaps the largest real-life experiment of what broad-based upzoning can achieve in an expensive, supply-constrained city—and in the 7 years since the implementation of the AUP, residential construction has skyrocketed. The total number of housing permits issued smashed previous records, while permits for the multi-unit attached housing projects legalized in the AUP went from only a small percentage of overall construction activity to the city's dominant source of new housing….
In fact, upzonings in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand have set off a massive construction boom throughout the entire archipelago. In 2023, New Zealand (population: 5.2M) permitted 37k housing units, more than the San Francisco and Los Angeles metro areas combined (population: 17.3M). Auckland, a city of only 1.7M, permitted 15k units last year—while preliminary data shows the 5 boroughs of New York City (population: 8.3M) permitted a meager 9.2k units by comparison. In total, New Zealand permitted 9.7 new housing units per 1000 residents in 2022, a 45-year-high that was nearly double the rates seen in the US.
Politano points out studies find that upzoning is indeed the main cause of the Kiwi housing construction boom:
So over the last decade-plus, what has been the economic effect of these upzonings in Auckland and other parts of New Zealand? The best evidence comes from a series of academic papers by Professor Ryan Greenaway-McGrevy at the University of Auckland and comprehensive data tracking done by Matthew Maltman at Australia's E61 Institute. Despite some early back-and-forth academic quibbles, the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that upzonings have significantly increased housing production—the AUP is estimated to have created more than 43k extra housing units from 2016-2022, while the Lower Hutt upzonings increased total Wellington region housing starts by 12-17%. That, in turn, has significantly improved housing affordability—rent-to-income ratios in Auckland have significantly declined even as they have steadily risen elsewhere in New Zealand.
The New Zealand experience reinforces already extensive evidence that zoning reform can increase construction, lower housing prices and enable more people to "move to opportunity." As Politano suggests, the US and other countries can learn from New Zealand's success.
The mechanisms of reform, however, might be different here. New Zealand is a unitary state, not a federal one. Reform there was, in part, spurred by central government's ability to override local authorities, resulting in crucial national legislation. In addition, as Politano notes, Auckland, by itself, contains some one third of New Zealand's population, and a large fraction of the nation's most important real estate, for purposes of housing and job opportunities.
The US, obviously, is a federal system, with relevant authority spread out over many state and local governments. We also have many more jurisdictions where reform is necessary.
That said, we can give nation-wide impetus to reform by promoting stronger judicial review of exclusionary zoning. Josh Braver and I explain how and why this can be done in a forthcoming Texas Law Review article. In addition, state legislative reforms can help curtail local NIMBYism. The United States has stronger judicial review than New Zealand, and it can be used to root out exclusionary zoning, because such restrictions violate constitutional property rights.
Finally, as in New Zealand, YIMBY zoning reform can be a cross-ideological movement that cuts across conventional partisan and ideological divides. The collaboration between Braver (a progressive) and me (a libertarian) is just one small example of this dynamic.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A reminder: It's properly termed, "YIYBY" (Yes In Your Back Yard), as the advocates are almost exclusively NOT living in the areas that would forcibly have their character changed.
I think the main motivation behind NIMBYism here in the States is a strictly pragmatic and economic one. Of course, there are plenty of people who take the view, "I spent a boatload of money to buy a house, in large part, to *not* be living where 'those people' live." Fair enough, and there are perfectly legitimate criticisms of those people.
But (and I'll speak only to California, where I have lived most of my life), I that most opponents of high-density housing feel some version of, "I support the idea, in principle. But I just spent $1 million on my single-family detached house. If multi-story apartments and condos and triplexes are put in, in my area, the value of my house will plunge."
And the value of that house *will* plunge, of course. Now, thinking long-term, and taking a utilitarian "best interests of society writ large" approach, allowing this kind of construction makes a ton of sense. But it's not surprising or shocking that everyone (other than the filthy-rich, who can afford to lost a bunch of money with no actual impact in their quality of life) who has invested and risked a large portion of their economic future on real estate, will be loathe to allow a change that will certainly result in a significant financial loss. *Especially* when most of those people will also be living in those pieces of real estate, and they will now have to deal with greatly increased traffic, density, loss of views, etc etc, in addition to the financial hit. If someone is thinking of buying a house in Westwood, California (ie, quite close to the university UCLA), in 2024, with the prospect of high density housing being put into the block where you're thinking of buying . . . well, then that person can factor that in, in making an offer. But people who bought 5 or 10 years ago--ouch. [Query: Would those people be entitled to compensation, under a governmental Takings theory? If my million-dollar house goes down in value to $650,000 because the city/state has put a subway station on the rear of my property, then of course I'll get my $350,000 loss compensated. (Let's all be charitable, and assume that the govt will give me the actual loss amount, and will do that promptly, and do it without requiring costly litigation from me.) That's a classic example of a govt taking. But if my home's value goes down that same amount, due to the large apartments going up on both sides of my house, due to the dramatic change in zoning by that same govt; do I get the same compensation?]
If I were planning a city, from scratch, I would certainly have lots of high-density housing. But there, of course, everyone who moved in would know exactly what they were buying into.
(Note: edit function is apparently not working today)
In that situation, how is private property being taken for public use? I'm guessing there are all sorts of government regulations that affect property value that are perfectly constitutional.
Jon,
Oh, I think you're correct. And that's the problem. If I'm a house-owner, and it's worth a million bucks; if the city says that it will implement high-density construction, but that I'll be reimbursed for the plunge in my home's value, I might very well support this. Yes, my home will be less enjoyable to live in, but that might be a fair trade-off for solving the housing crises. I suspect that many people have some version of this value system. But, to be told, "It will be less enjoyable to live here AND you'll lose a ton of money in the process.", well, far fewer people will agree to this.
So, if you are looking for community buy-in (and I believe that most politicians will care about pissing-off those who will vote for/against them in the next election(s), then you probably want to create financial incentives for voters to agree. Or, at least, to not create huge disincentives to support a change in policy/law.
(Of course, I guess it's possible that a politician might conclude, "I don't care if I piss off 100 fairly wealthy voters, if I can provide a tangible benefit to 1,500 other voters. If current home-owners get financially screwed, then so be it. Omelette, broken eggs, etc." )
"and I believe that most politicians will care about pissing-off those who will vote for/against them in the next election(s)"
Here's the trap there: For politicians, changing the zoning laws to allow high density housing is just another way of "electing a new people"; It doesn't MATTER if the people already living in that single family housing neighborhood are pissed off, even one or two apartment buildings, and they'll be outnumbered.
Around here (Metro Vancouver, BC) upzoning increases land values. The BC government recently borrowed from New Zealand and rezoned most single family lots to multi-resident (2-6) units. It's too early to tell how it will roll out.
The article doesn't talk about infrastructure or transit or schools or hospitals or community services. At the moment many schools are over 100% and not accepting students. Local hospitals are at 100%. Public transit is intermittent in many areas. Some municipalities have banned natural gas for heating so heat pump and their electrical demand will strain neighbourhood electrical grids. Electric vehicles are also mandated so they will need parking and even more electrical demand.
All over the world municipal planning departments have managed growth by constraining growth so forcing municipalities to increase density is good but there's a lot of other pieces that need to be addressed at the same time.
Well, if you want housing to be affordable, that means it has to be sold at a lower price. I’ve supported the constitutionality of zoning laws because it’s legislative business, not judicial. But it’s totally open to ask legislatures whether they should be in the business of propping up artificially high housing prices when so few people can afford homes.
The problem of affordability isn't so much a product of prohibiting multi-family/high density housing. It's actually generated by building codes that prohibit building smaller, 'starter' homes.
My parents raised 3 children in a house that was maybe 900 square feet. When I decided to build a home of my own out in the country? I wasn't legally permitted to build anything that small. Or just put up a mobile home. I had to take out a substantial loan to build a much larger house than I had wanted.
I believe this is a product of local governments relying on property taxes; They have a strong incentive to warp building codes and zoning to force up housing costs, because their revenues scale with those costs.
“If my million-dollar house goes down in value to $650,000 because the city/state has put a subway station on the rear of my property, then of course I’ll get my $350,000 loss compensated.”
Unless they actually took some of your land to build the station, I doubt you would be entitled to any compensation.
Most of the successful regulatory takings claims I am aware of involve restrictions on what the owner can do with their land, not external factors that affect property values.
Yes, they took some of my land in my hypo. 🙂