Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Infrastructure Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Department presents housing and infrastructure study showing zoning limits and equity gaps; outlines multi‑year work program
Summary
Planning staff and consultants told the Metropolitan Planning Commission that current zoning and infrastructure delivery methods in Nashville are likely to leave a shortfall of tens of thousands of housing units and that ownership affordability is highly unequal across racial groups; staff outlined a multi‑year approach to zoning, code and infrastructure changes.
The Metro Planning Department and its consulting team presented a preliminary housing and infrastructure study to the Metropolitan Planning Commission on March 20 that examined how existing zoning, infrastructure delivery and past decisions affect housing supply, affordability and equity across Nashville.
Greg Claxton of the consultant team summarized key findings: the existing zoning code tends to allow unexpectedly large building forms but gives limited flexibility in unit types, contributing to a 10‑year build‑out estimate that falls short of expected demand by roughly 20,000–40,000 housing units. The study found rental housing supply generally performs better than ownership opportunities; middle‑housing product types could reduce home prices in the pilot analyses by roughly $220,000–$344,000 per home compared with typical new product and reduce monthly rents by $300–$600. The study also highlighted sharp racial disparities in neighborhood affordability: typical Black and Hispanic families could afford the typical home in under 1% of neighborhoods using current pricing, while White and Asian families could afford typical homes in about a third of neighborhoods.
The team reviewed historical zoning context, noting early zoning (1933) and its overlaps with segregationist patterns, and showed the modern zoning map produces complex and sometimes surprising distributions of single‑family and multifamily zones across neighborhoods by racial composition. Staff cautioned that broad, one‑size‑fits‑all code changes may have unintended consequences for communities of color and advocated targeted, evidence‑based updates.
On infrastructure, staff said Metro’s current approach—relying on piecemeal private development and limited public capital for rights‑of‑way, sidewalks and intersections—creates coordination challenges. The rezoning process has become an important mechanism for securing infrastructure but is not a substitute for a coordinated capital program. Claxton outlined a phased work program that includes recommending targeted building‑code amendments (e.g., to enable taller single‑stair buildings where safe), updates to detached accessory dwelling unit standards, creation of new “house‑scale” and larger middle‑housing zoning districts, a framework for bonus incentives for income‑restricted affordable units, and a June recommendation on zoning‑map changes aligned to transit. Staff plans community office hours and workshops in April and May and said a full report will be posted the following day.
Commissioners asked clarifying questions about whether the department would recommend actions not supported by NashvilleNext; staff said changes would generally be aligned to NashvilleNext goals or would include proposed updates to the plan before map changes. Several commissioners urged continued community outreach and better coordination with Metro departments to translate zoning changes into deliverable infrastructure.
