Ending Suburban Sprawl As A Climate Solution: New Paths Forward For Sustainable Development[1]
Written by Joseph Lepak and Professor Dayna Smith

The current housing crisis represents both an opportunity and a danger for the environmental movement.[2] Housing availability and affordability are major drivers of the crisis so far.[3] Analysts predict some relief in the housing market in 2026, but there are still questions of availability, particularly in the rental space.[4] This year marks a time of positive indicators, but housing continues to be a hot-button, bipartisan issue. It is also inextricably linked to the environment as zoning determines where we live. The push for low-density spaced-out homes encourages a higher cost and emission lifestyle through car-dependency, one of the driving causes of climate change, while also decreasing availability driving up housing prices.

With the need for new homes, some would opt to promote additional development, taking the opportunity to deregulate environmental protection. Others, in reaction, opt to entrench the status quo of preserving environmental at the cost of new development. Neither approach truly balances environmental protection or human needs, creating a gridlock that maintains an unsustainable economic system. Instead, the path forward lies in sustainable zoning reform. This blog will first explore how environmentally harmful sprawl is by examining the impacts of suburbia. Next, this blog will examine current zoning reforms and how well they balance development and environmental interests. Finally, it will recommend a path forward: states should take initiative to avoid sprawl through substantive statewide policies rather than traditional zoning. Specifically, states should designate “developed areas” to focus development while implementing stricter restrictions in “non-development areas.”

Density and Environmentalism 

To understand why density is beneficial to the environment, it is easier to start with why sprawl is environmentally harmful. The major problems with suburban sprawl are the inefficient use of resources and land.[5] Nearly 70% of Americans currently live in single-family homes with an average area per person of ~784 square feet.[6] This is an increase from the 1970s when 41% of Americans lived in homes with ~556 square feet.[7] However, since then, the United States’s population has grown by nearly 130 million, meaning more land and resources must be expended to house the growing population.[8] This has often resulted in destruction or alteration of natural spaces in favor of development as more land has to be used per person.[9]

Looking specifically at the resources involved, single-family homes require more materials because of the growing space-per-person metrics. These materials must be extracted and transported to building sites. Which increases the environmental impact per person if more resources are needed and sprawl increases travel time.[10] Furthermore, modern home construction heavily relies on fossil fuel products in the home, further increasing emissions.[11] To be clear, denser housing has increased emission costs in the upfront construction of larger buildings, but uses less material per person which results in fewer overall emissions per person.[12]

Additionally, larger individual homes need more energy for heating and cooling.[13] The energy needed scales with the amount of open space that has to be warmed or cooled.[14] The best way to reduce this kind of energy costs is to build homes with less open spaces (smaller and less rooms) or take advantage of natural heating and cooling.[15] Denser buildings are able to provide smaller spaces with more efficient land use. Additionally, denser buildings have a further advantage that shared utilities can be upgraded with energy efficient appliances in a cost-effective manner (for example, hot water heaters), unlike single-family homes.[16]

Moving to suburbia’s broader impact: land use planning. Specifically, suburban development relies on sprawl and car-dependency. Car-dependence forces car travel to be the main means of transportation, accelerating emissions as individuals must drive everywhere. Strikingly, a suburbanite’s carbon footprint can be 2-4 times higher than an urbanite, depending on commuting distance and access to public transit.[17] Car dependency also increases resource use by requiring the buildout of extensive road infrastructure and car-dependent zones, “stroads,” which are commercial areas only accessible via car.[18] This car dependent infrastructure is expensive and encourages an unsustainable lifestyle that requires continuous consumption of land and fossil fuels.[19] Society subconsciously recognizes car dependency as inefficient as seem with commuter rail networks: trains built to reduce commuter pressure despite continuous publication how one more lane will solve traffic and not widespread train adoption.[20]

Dense development aims to solve these problems by concentrating populations to reduce the resources needed per person for building and transportation.[21] The independence from cars by planning around transit means less resources have to be poured into infrastructure.[22] For example, if the same amount of people living on ten miles of suburban roads could be concentrated onto one mile, nine miles of road, piping, and cables could be saved.[23] The number of people makes transit more cost-effective, and, if mixed-use is allowed, a person may not need a car depending on how close they live, shop, and work to transit. The reduced car and material usage directly reduces emissions produced.[24] For municipalities needing to address housing shortages, allowing density creates more homes (less space per person) while costing less (only needing to build one road versus ten), a cost-efficient bargain.[25]

Recent State Zoning Reforms

Given the ongoing housing crisis, many state and local governments are examining and reforming their zoning and development laws. These reforms are ongoing, but as we enter 2026, they have become important models of the path towards sustainable housing development.

In general, three categories of zoning reform stand out: (1) land use deregulation, (2) environmental deregulation, and (3) targeted change. An example, land use deregulation is single-family home bans, removing limits on how land can be used, but also includes restrictions on invasive site plan reviews and aesthetic codes. Environmental deregulation reduces environmental protection or quality of review for cheaper expediency in building. Finally, targeted changes are about achieving a specific goal rather than general liberalization, like allowing development in specific areas. Many reforms involve a mix of all three categories.

In 2018 Minneapolis was the first city in the United States to ban single-family-only zoning.[26] As part of its 2040 plan, Minneapolis upzoned all previously single-family zones (70% of the city) to include duplexes and triplexes (land use deregulation).[27] Additionally, Minneapolis allowed the construction of three-six story buildings around transit stops, eliminated off-street parking minimums, created set-asides for new apartment buildings, and increased housing subsidies (targeted changes).[28] However, backlash and lawsuits left Minneapolis’s 2040 plan’s future uncertain, with opponents claiming the upzoning would result in environmental harm and disruption of neighborhoods.[29] This reflects the need for education about density, as the density ban would not have reduced sewage usage, since the same number of people would live in the region. Instead, density would make it easier for Minneapolis to service sewage needs.

Despite the backlash, other states have used Minneapolis as an example. Oregon passed similar legislation to Minneapolis, allowing duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in 2019, and eliminating minimum parking requirements in 2023.[30] Oregon has gone further through a wave of statewide zoning, where Oregon has overridden local building and zoning codes that prohibit these kinds of development and allowing lot subdivision.[31] Similarly, in 2021, California eliminated single-family zoning by allowing duplexes and accessory dwelling units of up to four units on select single-family lots; however, limits applicability mean only ~40,000 out of ~7.5 million single-family home lots qualify, calling into question this impact.[32] In a similar manner, many single-family home “bans,” have not lived to up Minneapolis’s breadth or Oregon’s continued commitment. Maine for example “banned single-family zoning” by allowing accessory dwelling units.[33] Single-family home bans are not really bans as single-family homes can still be built, rather it is reclassifying single-family zoning as low-density zoning. Other jurisdictions are expanding this “low-density development” zoning.[34]

Similarly, states have been encouraging transit-oriented development, a form of targeted change zoning reform. Transit-oriented development is an urban planning policy that concentrates density around transit centers (subways, commuter rail, and buses, etc.) and allows mixed residential and commercial development.[35] Rather than banning single family zoning, transit-oriented development reclassifies zones around transit centers, allowing denser or mixed-use development by right or special permit. A good example of transit-oriented development is Massachusetts’s MBTA Communities Act.[36] The law requires municipalities to zone the half mile around Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority commuter rail, subway, ferry, and bus stations (defined as larger facilities) as a new zoning district.[37] This newly zoned district will allow, by-right, multi-family housing with a minimum density of 15 units per acre, subject to environmental regulations under Massachusetts law, with no age restrictions, and be suitable for children.[38] Like with the single-family home bans, Massachusetts’s Act was challenged in court but was upheld.[39] Massachusetts is now ensuring all municipalities comply with the Act’s requirements.

Lastly, some states have applied a mix of all three types of reform. For example, Vermont recently passed widespread housing and environmental reform legislation: Act 181 and the HOME Act. In 1970 Vermont passed Act 250, which required new development to be subject to extensive criteria focused on preventing environmental impact and mitigating social need.[40] Act 250’s restrictions are praised as being responsible for Vermont not being overtaken by sprawl, but criticized as creating its current housing crisis which affects Vermont’s long-term economic health.[41] Vermont responded to this critiques through a combination of land use deregulation and environmental deregulation. The HOME Act, passed in 2023, legalized duplexes and other low-density multi-family units statewide and exempted multi-family housing projects within designated developed areas from Act 250 review.[42] Vermont limited the environmental impact by deregulating land use to areas already affected by human development.

Act 181, in 2024, built off the HOME Act’s momentum by reforming Act 250 directly. Rather than triggering Act 250’s criteria based on project size, Act 181 established three tiers of review based on project location.[43] Currently, projects located in designated downtowns and villages will operate under newer lighter scrutiny rules compared to pre-Act 181. In contrast, new development, especially roads, in undeveloped areas, will have higher scrutiny rules compared to pre-Act 181.[44] Act 181’s tiers balance development by encouraging it in affected areas, but discourage in pristine habitat through regulatory costs, rather than impose a general regulatory cost on all development.

Vermont’s reforms demonstrate a path for states to use a combination of zoning reforms to encourage sustainable development. Vermont balances the need for more housing[45] with environmental protection by strengthening barriers in undeveloped areas, contrasting with other states’ reforms. The transit-oriented development MBTA Communities Act only changed land uses around transit centers and still requires the same level of environmental review.[46] Similarly, single-family home bans do not reduce environmental protection, and, overall, denser development is more environmentally friendly.

However, simply because people can build does not mean they will, leading to tensions between environmental sustainability and social justice. California, for example, has responded by reducing the oversight of CEQA, mostly for projects supporting denser development, in conjunction with its single-family home bans. This has prompted concerns that the environment is being sacrificed for decreased regulatory costs, as California is allowing duplexes in new sprawl, not true density.[47] Vermont’s Act 181 addresses these concerns by reducing regulatory costs for development in already developed areas, while increasing them in undeveloped areas. If regulation discourages development, then developers will be less inclined to build in undisturbed land and instead be incentivized to build on already developed and disturbed land through reduced regulation.[48] Vermont’s policies refocuses environmental law to be about protecting the natural world and ensuring quality of life for people in developed areas where natural habitat is gone, rather than being a regulatory cost.

The Path Forward

Suburban sprawl has had a significant impact on the environment. The destruction of undeveloped habitat, resource-intensive building practices, and high car dependence are hallmarks of sprawl. In contrast, denser development minimizes environmental destruction. While denser housing still has impacts, those impacts are concentrated, maintaining larger swaths of undeveloped lands. Failing to develop, though, is not an option, as many Americans struggle with housing costs and availability. Many state and local governments have acted, but the question remains whether developers will follow the model established by Minneapolis, Oregon, and Massachusetts. For example, Oregon has seen mixed result with a real estate agency publishing materials noting how a previously upzoned community saw 20 non-single-family homes built compared to 200 single-family homes since 1980.[49] Yet, recent data shows how “missing middle” housing has become the most built form of housing in Portland.[50] But concerns that only land use deregulation would not lead to development is has led California to slash environmental regulations, and could inspire other states.

Vermont offers a model for a better path forward. Vermont’s Act 181 shifted the regulatory burden from being universal to geographically targeted, with greater restrictions on undeveloped areas and reduced restrictions on already developed areas. The key to this reform is the shifting regulatory costs from being equal between developed and undeveloped land, to asymmetric to balance development and environmental interests. Following Vermont’s model, states looking to balance development and the environment should tailor regulations between developed and undeveloped areas. Undeveloped area regulations should focus on limiting impacts and disruption to natural habitat. Developed area regulation should focus on limiting environmental impact to humans, like air and noise pollution, and considering sustainability, like social services and transit access. States will have to enforce these regulations through statewide schemes, designating developed-undeveloped regionally and ensuring adequate notice for regulations and oversight (Vermont for example has established an Act 250 Commission and specialist environmental courts). These policies will be controversial and must be implemented with broad consensus to avoid resentment between those in development areas and in non-development areas.[51] But as the housing market continues to shift and housing continues to be a key issue in 2026, it is critical to start effective reforms now. Through education and outreach, reforms can encourage environmentally friendly development in a way that can both encourage social justice and sustainability.

Author Bio:
Joseph Lepak is a dual J.D. and MERL student at Vermont Law and Graduate School with plans to graduate in May of 2026. Joseph serves as a Symposium Editor for Vermont Journal of Environmental Law Vol. 27.

[1] Photo by Kamil Ślusarczyk on Unsplash.

[2] Chris Gunster, Why Is The Housing Market Down And Will It Rebound?, Forbes (Aug. 1, 2025), https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisgunster/2025/08/01/why-is-the-housing-market-down-and-will-it-rebound/.

[3] Id.

[4] Mark Huffman, Here are the predictions for the housing market in 2026, ConsumerAffairs (Dec. 2, 2025), https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/here-are-the-predictions-for-the-housing-market-in-2026-120225.html.

[5] Megumi Tamura & Joseph W. Kane, It’s not just cities—suburbs and exurbs need to adopt and implement climate plans too, Brookings (Apr. 26, 2023), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/its-not-just-cities-suburbs-and-exurbs-need-to-adopt-and-implement-climate-plans-too/.

[6] Residential Buildings Factsheet, Ctr. for Sustainable Sys. Univ. Mich. (Nov. 26, 2025), https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/built-environment/residential-buildings-factsheet.

[7] Id.

[8] Historical Population Change Data (1910-2020), U.S. Census Bureau (Apr. 26, 2021), https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange-data-text.html.

[9] Qiang Ren et al., Impacts of global urban expansion on natural habitats undermine the 2050 vision for biodiversity, 190 Res., Conservation and Recycling 106834 (2023).

[10] Chris Magwood et. al., The Hidden Climate Impact of Residential Construction, RMI (Nov. 26, 2025), https://rmi.org/insight/hidden-climate-impact-of-residential-construction/.

[11] New Residential Construction Carbon Emissions, U.S. Department of Energy (Nov. 26, 2025), https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/83049.pdf.

[12] Alessio Miatto et al., Correlation Between Building Size and Material Intensity in Residential Buildings, 197 Res., Conservation and Recycling 107093 (2021).

[13] Use of energy explained Energy use in homes, U.S. Energy Information Administration (Dec. 18, 2023), https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/homes.php.

[14] See André Stephan & Robert H. Crawford, The Relationship Between House Size and Life Cycle Energy Demand: Implications for Energy Efficiency Regulations for Buildings, 116 Energy 1158 (2016).

[15] Residential Buildings Factsheet, Ctr. for Sustainable Sys. Univ. Mich. (Nov. 26, 2025), https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/built-environment/residential-buildings-factsheet.

[16] Id.

[17] Stephen Hudson, This map shows how low-density sprawl makes climate change worse, Greater Greater Washington (May 2, 2022), https://ggwash.org/view/84816/this-map-shows-how-low-density-sprawl-makes-climate-change-worse.

[18] James R. Hagerty, ‘Stroads’ Aren’t Streets. They Aren’t Roads. And They Don’t Work, Wall Street Journal (May 15, 2024), https://www.wsj.com/business/logistics/stroads-street-road-problems-fixes-9a04863c?st=g0a5pn9xt6wycy3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink.

[19] Bejamin Schneider, CityLab University: Induced Demand, Bloomberg (Sept. 6, 2018), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-06/traffic-jam-blame-induced-demand.

[20] Oliver Wyman, Forget Ride-Hailing. Rail Is A City’s Most Cost-Effective, Least-Polluting Transport, Forbes (Sept. 24, 2019), https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwyman/2019/09/24/forget-ride-hailing-rail-is-a-citys-most-cost-effective-least-polluting-transport/.

[21] Christi Nakajima, Five Key Components to Include in State Transit-Oriented Development Laws, ACEEE (Oct. 31, 2025), https://www.aceee.org/blog-post/2025/10/five-key-components-include-state-transit-oriented-development-laws.

[22] Gilles Duranton & Diego Puga, The Economics of Density, Nat. Bureau Econ. Rsch. (2020).

[23] Charles Marohn, How Much Does a Mile of Road Actually Cost?, Strong Towns (Feb. 27, 2025), https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020-1-27-how-much-does-a-mile-of-road-actually-cost.

[24] The Most Detailed Map of Auto Emissions in America – The New York Times.

[25] Drew DeSilver, A look at the state of affordable housing in the U.S., Pew Research Center (Oct. 25, 2024), https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/25/a-look-at-the-state-of-affordable-housing-in-the-us/.

[26] Richard D. Kahlenberg, How Minneapolis Ended Single-Family Zoning, The Century Foundation (Oct. 24, 2019), https://tcf.org/content/report/minneapolis-ended-single-family-zoning/.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.

[29] Nick Longworth, Minneapolis 2040 plan won’t be reviewed by Minnesota Supreme Court, Fox 9 (August 21, 2024), https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-2040-plan-minnesota-supreme-court.

[30] Eliminating Single-Family Zoning and Parking Minimums in Oregon, Bipartisan Policy Center (Sept. 26, 2023), https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/eliminating-single-family-zoning-and-parking-minimums-in-oregon/.

[31] Michael Andersen, Oregon Decides It Was a Mistake to Let Cities Ban Homes, Sightline Institute (July 28, 2025), https://www.sightline.org/2025/07/28/oregon-decides-it-was-a-mistake-to-let-cities-ban-homes/.

[32] Manuela Tobias, California’s housing crisis: How much difference will a new zoning law make?, Cal Matters, https://calmatters.org/housing/2021/08/california-housing-crisis-zoning-bill/.

[33] Jacqueline Weaver, Communities mostly in compliance with new Maine housing law as deadline comes and goes, News Center Maine, https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/housing/maine-housing-law-deadline/97-154218e1-33de-4524-81c3-24280735c508.

[34] David Gutman, WA House passes bill banning single-family zoning, The Seattle Times (Mar. 7, 2023), https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wa-house-passes-bill-banning-single-family-zoning/; Andrea Swalec, Alexandria votes to end single-family-only zoning, NBC WASHINGTON (Nov. 29, 2023), https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/alexandria-votes-to-end-single-family-only-zoning/3482030/.

[35] Trevor Mathia, Transit Oriented Developments, ALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE (Nov. 19, 2025), https://www.aii.org/transit-oriented-developments/.

[36] Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40a, § 3A (2025).

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

[39] Judge turns back unfunded mandate challenge to MBTA housing law | WBUR News

[40] 10 VSA Chapter 151

[41] Chris Lisinski, Judge turns back unfunded mandate challenge to MBTA housing law, wbur (June 9, 2025), https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/06/09/mbta-communities-act-unfunded-mandate-suit-tossed.

[42] Lola Duffort, Phil Scott signs ‘HOME’ bill, legalizing duplexes statewide and tweaking Act 250, vtdigger (June 5, 2023), https://vtdigger.org/2023/06/05/phil-scott-signs-home-bill-legalizing-duplexes-statewide-and-tweaking-act-250/.

[43] 2024 Legislative Revisions Affecting Community Planning and Revitalization, Department of Housing and Community Development (July 9, 2024), https://outside.vermont.gov/agency/ACCD/ACCD_Web_Docs/CD/CPR/Resources-and-Rules/CPR-DHCD-LegislativeSummary_2024.pdf?_gl=1*1jmchww*_ga*MzA0NTU5NTg2LjE3NDkwNDQxNjc.*_ga_V9WQH77KLW*czE3NjM5MjE3NzUkbzIyJGcxJHQxNzYzOTIyMTE1JGo0MCRsMCRoMA.

[44] Carly Berlin, With veto override, Act 250 reform bill becomes law, Vermont Public (June 17, 2024), https://www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2024-06-17/with-veto-override-act-250-reform-bill-becomes-law.

[45] Leslie Black-Plumeau, Why Vermont needs 30,000-40,000 more homes, Vermont Housing Finance Agency (Apr. 3, 2023), https://vhfa.org/news/blog/why-vermont-needs-30000-40000-more-homes.

[46] Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40a, § 3A (2025).

[47] Caroline Guibert Chase et al., Effective Immediately: CEQA Reform Legislation, NATIONAL LAW REVIEW (July 2, 2025), https://natlawreview.com/article/effective-immediately-ceqa-reform-legislation; Anne Cottrell & Liz Alessio, California environmental law nearly killed a childcare facility in our community. Enough is enough, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE (May 27, 2025), https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/california-ceqa-reform-20342916.php; Camille von Kaenel, California is about to roll back a landmark environmental law, POLITCO (June 30, 2025), https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/30/california-landmark-environmental-ceqa-housing-00434678.

[48] Paul Emrath, Government Regulation in the Price of a New Home: 2021, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS (2021), https://www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/news-and-economics/docs/housing-economics-plus/special-studies/2021/special-study-government-regulation-in-the-price-of-a-new-home-may-2021.pdf.

[49] The End of Portland Single Family Zoning, Stephen Fitzmaurice Team (Nov. 11, 2025), https://realestateagentpdx.com/the-end-of-portland-single-family-zoning/15783.

[50] Portland sees significant production in middle housing resulting from recently adopted zoning changes, Portland (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.portland.gov/bps/planning/rip2/news/2025/2/4/portland-sees-significant-production-middle-housing-resulting.

[51] Scott Beyer, Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary: A Driver of Suburban Sprawl, Forbes (Mar. 29, 2017), https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2017/03/29/portlands-urban-growth-boundary-a-driver-of-suburban-sprawl/.