I study how local governments shape planning outcomes in the context of political conflict and multi-level governance systems. I engage this subject from the perspectives of transportation projects, land-use policy, and affordable housing development in the United States and Europe. I am integrating these fields through my dissertation project, which is currently under development.
My published peer-reviewed articles and chapters are listed below, and detailed further down on this page. My full CV is here.
Peer-reviewed journal articles
Yonah Freemark, Anne Hudson, and Jinhua Zhao (2019). “Are Cities Prepared for Autonomous Vehicles? Planning for Technological Change by U.S. Local Governments.” Journal of the American Planning Association 85(2), 133-151.
PDF Abstract Journal site Appendix
Yonah Freemark (2019). “Doubling housing production in the Paris region: A multi-policy, multi-jurisdictional paradigm.” International Journal of Housing Policy. Accepted for publication; in production.
Yonah Freemark (2019). “Metropolis on the water: Varieties of development logics along the Seine.” Projections. Accepted for publication; in production.
Yonah Freemark, Justin Steil, and Kathleen Thelen (2019). “Varieties of urbanism: A comparative view of metropolitan fragmentation and inequality.” Politics & Society. Conditionally accepted for publication.
Yonah Freemark (2018). “Challenges in the Creation of Mixed-Use Affordable Housing: Measuring and Explaining Its Limited Prevalence.” Housing Policy Debate 28(6), 1004-1021.
PDF Abstract Journal site Appendix
Lawrence Vale and Yonah Freemark (2012). “From Public Housing to Public-Private Housing: 75 Years of American Social Experimentation.” Journal of the American Planning Association 78(4), 379-402.
PDF Abstract Journal site
Peer-reviewed book chapters
Lawrence Vale and Yonah Freemark (2019). “The Privatization of American Public Housing: Leaving the Poorest of the Poor Behind.” In The Routledge Handbook of Housing Policy and Planning, edited by Katrin B. Anacker, Mai Thi Nguyen, and David P. Varady. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. 189-206.
PDF Abstract Book site
Yonah Freemark (2015). “Myth #5: Public Housing Ended in Failure during the 1970s.” In Public Housing Myths: Perception, Reality, and Social Policy, edited by Nicholas Dagen Bloom, Fritz Umbach, and Lawrence J. Vale. 121-138. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
PDF Abstract Book site
Yonah Freemark and Susanne Schindler (2015). “Twin Parks.” In Affordable Housing in New York: The People, Places, and Policies that Transformed a City, edited by Nicholas Dagen Bloom and Matthew Gordon Lasner. 226-230. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
PDF Abstract Book site
Yonah Freemark (2013). The entrepreneurial state : New York’s Urban Development Corporation, an experiment to take charge of affordable housing production, 1968-1975. Master’s thesis for MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning.
PDF Thesis site
Yonah Freemark. “Formal/informal layering in metropolitan governance: How municipalities assert themselves in the context of regional transportation projects.“
Yonah Freemark. “The origins of monofunctionality: Postwar American public housing’s isolating project.“
Yonah Freemark. “Should public transit be managed in the realm of transportation policy or urban planning? Debates in the 1960s over the appropriate oversight of the urban transportation program.“
Yonah Freemark and Justin Steil. “Zoned out, Priced out? Affordable housing and regional fragmentation.“
Yonah Freemark, Anne Hudson, and Jinhua Zhao. “Policies for autonomy: How American cities envision regulating automated vehicles.“
Abigail Bliss, Yonah Freemark, and Lawrence Vale. “The death and life of affordable housing in Haussmann’s Paris.“
“Upzoning Chicago: Impacts of a Zoning Reform on Property Values and Housing Construction,” in Urban Affairs Review
“What are the local-level impacts of zoning change? I study recent Chicago upzonings that increased allowed densities and reduced parking requirements in a manner exogenous of development plans and neighborhood characteristics. To evaluate outcomes, I use difference-in-differences tests on property transaction prices and housing-unit construction permits. I detect significant, robust increases in values for transactions on parcels that received a boost in allowed building size. I also identify value increases for residential condominiums, indicating that upzoning increased prices of existing housing units. I find no impacts of the reforms, however, on the number of newly permitted dwellings over five years. As such, I demonstrate that the short-term, local-level impacts of upzoning are higher property prices but no additional new housing construction.”
Check out coverage of the paper in CityLab, Slate, NBC News, Bloomberg Opinion, Governing, The Real Deal, Talking Headways: A Streetsblog Podcast, Chicago Agent, Planetizen, DJCOregon, Crain’s New York, The Sacramento Bee, The Urbanist, Slate France, CALMatters, Forbes, Multihousing Pro, The Frisc, The Planning Report, Buildings on Air, The Press-Enterprise, Minn Post, and Charlotte WFAE 90.7.
“Are Cities Prepared for Autonomous Vehicles? Planning for Technological Change by U.S. Local Governments,” with Anne Hudson and Jinhua Zhao, in Journal of the American Planning Association
Problem, research strategy, and findings: Local government policies could affect how autonomous vehicle (AV) technology is deployed. In this study we examine how municipalities are planning for AVs, identify local characteristics that are associated with preparation, and describe what effects bureaucrats expect from the vehicles. We review existing plans of the 25 largest U.S. cities and survey transportation and planning officials from 120 cities, representative of all municipalities with populations larger than 100,000. First, we find that few local governments have begun planning for AVs. Second, cities with larger populations and higher population growth are more likely to be prepared. Third, although local officials are optimistic about the technology and its potential to increase safety while reducing congestion, costs, and pollution, more than a third of respondents worried about AVs increasing vehicle miles traveled and sprawl while reducing transit ridership and local revenues. Those concerns are associated with greater willingness to implement AV regulations, but there is variation among responses depending on political ideology, per capita government expenditures, and population density.
Takeaway for practice: Municipal governments’ future approaches to AV preparation will likely depend on the characteristics of city residents and local resources. Planners can maximize policy advancement if they work with officials in other cities to develop best practices and articulate strategies that overlap with existing priorities, such as reducing pollution and single-occupancy commuting.
“Challenges in the Creation of Mixed-Use Affordable Housing: Measuring and Explaining Its Limited Prevalence,” in Housing Policy Debate
“Mixed-use affordable housing buildings collocate residences and commercial uses. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program provides one mechanism to fund such structures. But the literature offers little insight into the frequency of mixed-use LIHTC buildings, partly because of a lack of data identifying them, and it does not pinpoint conditions that facilitate their development. I explore these issues through a Chicago, Illinois, case study. First, I analyze imagery to create the first database of mixed-use LIHTC buildings. I show that only 5% of LIHTC structures incorporate commercial uses, and that these are concentrated in wealthier, whiter, and already retail-heavy neighborhoods. Second, I use stakeholder interviews to explain the low rate and selective location of mixed-use projects; I find that the stiffest barriers are conflicting governmental policies, difficulties securing financing in the context of a perception of weak retail demand and investor desires for reliable returns, and design constraints.”
“The Privatization of American Public Housing: Leaving the Poorest of the Poor Behind,” with Lawrence Vale, in The Routledge Handbook of Housing Policy and Planning
Since 1937 American public housing has often been viewed as the rise and fall of a single program. However, this view masks a long-term moral and ideological struggle over the place of the poorest residents in American cities that has transmuted low-income housing provision from the public sector into public-private partnerships. This chapter empirically analyzes evolving federal housing programs and policies, starting with conventional public housing but also including other programs that have provided deep housing subsidies. When charted over time, this evolution reveals how the meaning and execution of public housing have shifted and diversified, in tandem with new roles for the private sector. The private sector has played important roles in the provision of public housing since its inception, even as private real estate interests opposed the program entirely. Starting in the late 1950s, with conventional public housing increasingly stigmatized, new forms have emerged. Housing policymakers have gradually shifted responsibility for low-income housing to private developers (through project-based subsidies), to private landlords (through voucher-based subsidies that traveled with tenants), and to private investors and nonprofit developers (through the deployment of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits). Then, during the 1990s and 2000s, a series of more than 250 public-private partnerships transformed public housing into a wide range of mixed-income communities under the HOPE VI program. Nearly all of these partnerships reduced the number of units serving extremely low-income residents. The 50-year trend toward privatization may have reached its logical culmination after 2013 with the burgeoning promulgation of the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program. This program further blurred the public-private boundary by permitting conventional public housing apartments to be converted to long-term project-based contracts that no longer require public ownership or management. Taken together, these moves toward a hybridized public-private housing system have reduced the percentage of Americans receiving deep housing subsidies.
“Myth #5: Public Housing Ended in Failure during the 1970s,” in Public Housing Myths
“One of the abiding myths of public housing history is that public housing came to an end in direct response to its problems. According to this myth, public housing was so inflexible that it could never be made to work; realizing this, politicians rightly ended the program in the 1970s. Yonah Freemark’s chapter… disputes this myth and uncovers a more complex picture… While opposition to “conventional” public housing founded on the program’s perceived failures did exist in the early 1970s, these criticisms did not play the determining role in the administration’s policy decisions.”
“Twin Parks,” with Susanne Schindler, in Affordable Housing in New York
This chapter explores the history of Twin Parks, a complex of 2,250 affordable housing units completed in the Bronx in the mid-1970s. The project was constructed by New York State’s Urban Development Corporation and included a series of innovative urban and architectural designs, including contributions from Richard Meier and James Polshek.
The article argues that the projects offered their residents unique living spaces in a mixed-income environment. Now owned by private entities operating with public subsidies, Twin Parks has suffered from poor maintenance, but it remains a desirable place to live for many.
“From Public Housing to Public-Private Housing,” with Lawrence Vale, in Journal of the American Planning Association
American public housing since 1937 is often viewed as a single failed experiment of architecture, management, and policy. This view masks a much more highly differentiated experience for residents and housing authorities, rooted in a long-term moral and ideological struggle over the place of the poorest residents in American cities. This article reframes public housing history as a succession of informal social experiments: initial public efforts to clear out slum-dwellers and instead accommodate barely poor working-class tenants or the worthy elderly; a 30-year interlude, where public housing authorities consolidated the poorest into welfare housing while gradually shifting responsibility for low-income housing to private landlords, private developers, and private investors; and a series of partnerships since 1990 that reserve more of this public-private housing for a less-poor constituency. Empirically, this article provides an unprecedented graphic glimpse into the ways that the overall mode-share of public housing has shifted and diversified. Ultimately, this article reveals that the reduced role of the public sector has curtailed the growth of deeply subsidized housing provision to the lowest-income Americans.
“Roosevelt Island: Exception to a City in Crisis,” in Journal of Urban History
Today, New York City’s Roosevelt Island stands as living proof that the public sector can produce a mixed-income and mixed-race neighborhood from scratch. Its successes contrast with typical perceptions of government housing failure and indicate that with determined leadership, stable funding, and a good location, the public sector can create healthy, heterogeneous neighborhoods. This article examines the process of designing and constructing Roosevelt Island to illustrate how and why local actors took advantage of favorable conditions and made important political choices to achieve their commitments, even as political and financial support for such developments deteriorated. In light of the often dismal reputation of government housing policy in the United States, Roosevelt Island’s success—unique in its mixed-income legacy—offers lessons about effective city governance in the face of dwindling national support.