America Needs More Homes: A Forgotten California Idea Offers a Solution

The Challenge of Suburban Living and Municipal Fragmentation

Suburban living has long been a topic of debate, with some viewing it as the embodiment of the American dream, while others see it as a desolate and isolating existence. However, there is no denying the cultural significance of white picket fences and green lawns in shaping the American imagination. Historian Kenneth T. Jackson, often regarded as the leading authority on American suburbs, described suburbia as "the quintessential physical achievement of the United States" in his 1985 book Crabgrass Frontier. For many urbanists, the suburbs represent more than just a lifestyle—they are a significant governance challenge.

This challenge is known as municipal fragmentation. The bedroom communities surrounding major cities often have their own governments, electorates, and policy priorities. While the central issues of urban governance—such as transportation, housing, and job markets—are regional in nature, the fragmented structure of these areas makes coordination difficult. Each local government operates largely independently, sometimes at odds with the broader metropolitan region’s needs. In the U.S., there are few strong regional bodies that can overcome this parochialism.

The Housing Crisis and the Role of Suburbs

Addressing municipal fragmentation is crucial for creating vibrant, growing cities. To solve the housing crisis, build efficient transportation networks, and foster economic opportunity for the more than 80% of Americans who live in urban areas, we need institutions that can unify the towns, hamlets, and satellite cities of metropolitan regions.

Consider New York City's housing shortage. According to estimates, the entire New York metropolitan area would need to build over half a million homes to close the housing gap. While the city can increase housing production within its borders, it cannot do so alone. The region includes over 900 municipalities, from New Haven, Connecticut, to southern New Jersey. Many of these are affluent bedroom communities that benefit from proximity to the city without contributing much in return.

Take Greenwich, Connecticut, for example. With an average household income of $272,636, many residents work in Manhattan but pay property taxes that don’t support the city. Greenwich has strict zoning laws that limit housing supply, exacerbating the affordability crisis in New York. If such suburbs relaxed their restrictions, it could significantly ease the housing crunch in the central city. Increasing Greenwich’s population density to match that of a midsize city like New Haven would add over 250,000 residents, boosting the region’s affordability and economic opportunities.

However, New York City officials lack the authority to influence other towns’ housing policies. Without a clear incentive, residents in exclusionary suburbs (often referred to as NIMBYs) are unlikely to support regional solutions.

Regional Solutions and Lessons from Abroad

Some metropolitan areas have addressed this issue through municipal consolidation, such as when New York City expanded its borders to include the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. More recently, Louisville, Kentucky, merged with Jefferson County. But consolidation is rare today, and fragmentation remains the norm in the U.S.

An alternative solution is the creation of regional super-governments that oversee planning and land use across entire metropolitan areas. The U.S. already has regional bodies, such as the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council and the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. However, these organizations often lack the power to enforce change effectively.

Globally, countries like Japan and regions like Barcelona and Helsinki have more robust regional governments that conduct genuine planning. Japan’s prefectural system, for instance, gives regional authorities broad control over land use and planning, which may help explain why housing costs in cities like Tokyo have remained stable despite urban growth.

California’s Experiment with Regionalism

California was once a testing ground for regionalism. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, policymakers explored ways to address the extreme fragmentation of its largest metropolitan areas, such as Greater Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. One notable proposal came from the Los Angeles 2000 Committee, which suggested a Regional Growth Management Agency to balance jobs and housing in the sprawling Los Angeles metro area.

Inspired by these ideas, the Bay Area 2020 Commission proposed merging three regional agencies into one powerful body with the ability to enforce regional plans and issue development permits. A similar idea was floated by Willie Brown, a prominent California politician, who suggested abolishing city and county governments in favor of a Japanese-style prefectural system. Though these proposals never became law, they highlighted the potential of regional planning to address housing and economic challenges.

The Path Forward

A 2023 report by California YIMBY found that the greatest housing gains from zoning reforms could come from suburbs rather than high-cost cities. Eliminating restrictive zoning in places like Marin County could yield far more housing than doing the same in San Francisco.

While implementing regional super-governments would likely face resistance, it could be a more democratic approach than allowing exclusive enclaves to dictate their own rules and exclude lower-income residents. At a time when housing costs and commute times are concerns for many Americans, even modest steps toward regional integration could bring significant benefits.

Ned Resnikoff is an urban policy consultant and writer. He is a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and is currently working on a book about cities with an expected publication date of Fall 2026.