Lessons from Minneapolis’ Bold Upzoning Experiment
Zoning reform is increasingly being looked at as an important tool to combat housing shortages, affordability crises, and urban sprawl. While theoretically interesting, very few examples of successful programs exist due to the complexities of actual execution.
Minneapolis made waves in 2018 by becoming the first major U.S. city to eliminate single-family zoning—a centerpiece of its ambitious Minneapolis 2040 plan. The plan aimed to increase housing affordability, promote economic growth, and create a more equitable and sustainable city. A major priority was expanding “missing middle” housing— duplexes, triplexes, and small multi-unit buildings —but wide ranging, restrictive single-family zoning (allowing for only one stand-along home per lot) presented a major obstacle. By removing that obstacle, Minneapolis opened the door for more diverse housing options within established neighborhoods and existing infrastructure.
The impact has been significant:
Between 2017 and 2022, Minneapolis permitted approximately 21,000 new housing units
This marked a 12% increase in housing stock, far outpacing the 4% growth in the rest of Minnesota
Two- to four-unit housing permits rose by 45% from 2020 to 2022
Most impressively, rents in Minneapolis grew just 1% compared to 14% in the rest of Minnesota
Increasing housing supply while keeping affordability in check – can’t argue with success like that, right? Right?
Despite these promising outcomes, the initiative faced substantial opposition. Legal challenges, spearheaded by environmental groups like Smart Growth Minneapolis and the Minnesota Citizens for the Protection of Migratory Birds, argued that the city had failed to conduct proper environmental reviews. These lawsuits led to temporary injunctions, creating uncertainty and delaying progress for years.
A breakthrough came in 2024 when the Minnesota Legislature amended state law to exempt municipal comprehensive plans from certain environmental review requirements. This paved the way for a Hennepin County judge to dismiss the lawsuit in January 2025, effectively removing the roadblocks and allowing the project to proceed as designed.
Was this a victory for progress, or a case of sidestepping legitimate concerns? That depends on your perspective. It does seem that some of these groups were aiming to only stall and encumber the project instead of collaboratively improve it to address their concerns. What’s clear is that the state chose to prioritize addressing the housing crisis over certain environmental review processes—a decision that underscores the competing interests at play in urban planning.
Minneapolis offers valuable insights for cities considering similar zoning reforms:
1. Zoning reform (at least seemingly) works – Data suggests allowing greater density can significantly increase housing supply and moderate rent growth.
2. Legal preparation is essential – Anticipating legal challenges and preparing robust responses from the start is crucial.
3. Trade-offs are inevitable – No housing policy will satisfy all stakeholders; cities must make difficult choices.
4. Patience is required – Even successful reforms take years to show results, from policy implementation to construction.
5. Constructive opposition is better than obstruction – Stakeholders who refuse to engage in solutions risk being bypassed entirely.
As housing affordability remains a crisis around the world, Minneapolis demonstrates that bold action— even despite delays and hurdles—can yield tangible benefits. The next question is whether the city can regain and retain momentum to fully realize the potential of its pioneering approach to urban housing.
From your friends at GroundBreak Ventures