A Case of (Decreasing) American Exceptionalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem, research strategy, and findings Today, the United States stands alone among high-wealth countries in its copious use of exclusive zoning for single-family detached homes (single-family zoning, SFZ). Australia and Canada, however, are two countries that mirrored U.S. practices through the mid-20th century, and these countries still have SFZ, though it is less widespread today. We theorized reasons for the United States’ divergence in a review of histories and other studies from the three countries. We observed that when fiscal, affordability, and environmental concerns took hold globally in the 1970s, Australian and Canadian governments addressed these issues in part by opening single-family areas to more housing types, whereas nearly all U.S. governments left SFZ unchallenged. We show here how historical racial composition and prejudice in the United States, though long intertwined with zoning practices, began to distinguish American residential zoning practice from its Canadian and Australian counterparts at this time, explaining that American planners faced revanchism in the wake of civil rights legislation and White flight. A recent flurry of reform in the United States, however, indicates that U.S. residential zoning practices are reconverging with those in Australia and Canada.Takeaway for practice Observing how American zoning paralleled and then diverged from its Australian and Canadian counterparts has revealed another way in which U.S. racial composition and prejudice have distinguished the climate of planning in the United States. We also demonstrate how a more equitable way of zoning, one that opens more urban land to housing mixture, can provide a basis for building more sustainable cities in the United States. As American zoning begins to reconverge with its Australian and Canadian counterparts, U.S. planners can look to these countries to understand the potential and limits of undoing SFZ in pursuit of environmental, fiscal, and housing goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".