Do Metropolitan Zoning Asymmetries Influence the Geography of Suburban Growth and Gentrification?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this is an excellent paper. The paper is well written and makes a significant argument about urban-suburban dynamics based on the restrictiveness of zoning laws. I also appreciate the depth of the literature review. For multiple generations now, urban historians have been grappling with Kenneth Jackson’s synthesis and the authors have demonstrated that while it may not have been the last word on the subject, Jackson’s thesis still needs to be taken into consideration.

I have a few suggestions to make but these fall into the categories of either minor methodological considerations or things to think about for future research. I was wondering why the authors skipped over the 2013-2017 ACS data. It seems to me that having a mid-period data point would aid in understanding the trends over this period.

Normally I would object to using political geography to distinguish cities and suburbs, but in this case I think it’s warranted. The authors are looking at zoning regulations and those are municipally based. The “second- or third-largest city with a population of at least 100,000 residents” seems a little arbitrary, though. Given that the final sample contained 42 MSAs, I think the authors could distinguish urban from suburban places on a case-by-case basis rather than using a population threshold. Perhaps a better approach would be to classify as urban all cities with a traditional CBD. The Census Bureau hasn’t updated the list of CBDs in many years but I think this list (starting on page 309) captures all of the metro areas in your sample [https://books.google.com.na/books?id=6Ci2AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false] In any case, I’d like to see a list of urban places.

I would have liked to have seen a little more discussion about the eight MSAs that were left out of the analysis. Is there any sort of systematic bias in the NZLUD that would render the data incomplete in these MSAs? I don’t know how this might shake out and most likely it doesn’t alter the conclusions the authors reach but, again, I would have liked to have seen a little more discussion here.

There are a few issues with this pdf that need to be corrected. Table 3 is truncated in the version of the paper I read. I gather that the table should also include three columns of Suburban data but these columns were not present in my pdf. Also, some of the links in the References section are not correct. The Brouwer & Trounstine, Buchholz, Finio, Glaeser et al, Leguizamon & Christafore, and Mordechay links are dead links, and the links for the Lee & Perkins, Markley, Mordechay & Terback, Orfield & Luce, and Towe et al  papers are not correct.

I enjoyed reading this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

This manuscript provides a timely and methodologically complex analysis of metropolitan zoning asymmetries and their influence on suburban growth and gentrification in U.S. metro areas. The research is well-structured, multi-scalar in its approach, and theoretically grounded. It draws on an original Zoning Restrictiveness Index (ZRI), which is a notable contribution. However, revisions are required to improve clarity, consistency, and alignment with academic writing standards. Below, I offer detailed suggestions for improvement.

Research limitations and suggestions for improvement:

Title: I would suggest an alternative title, which the authors may consider if they find it suitable: “Do Metropolitan Zoning Asymmetries Influence the Geography of Suburban Growth and Gentrification?”

Abstract: One sentence should be added to specify the methods used by the authors. I recommend adding it before the presentation of results.

Keywords: I suggest using "Zoning asymmetries" as the second keyword, "Suburban area" as the third, and "Population change" as the fifth. They are more specific.

Results: Numerical values presented in tables are also repeated in the text. In every instance where this occurs, the text should be reformulated to avoid redundancy. The tables are sufficiently informative, so only a brief accompanying commentary is needed.

Discussion: A large portion of the discussion is devoted to interpreting the results. It would be useful to strengthen the comparison between 2010 and 2020—what changed? I assume that the COVID-19 pandemic influenced shifts in previously established patterns. A smaller portion of the discussion connects the findings to existing research. The authors should enhance this section by identifying additional relevant studies and clarifying how their results align with or differ from prior findings. This especially applies to incorporating more recent literature, preferably not older than five years. Additionally, a critical reflection on the applied methodology is lacking. If data on internal migration are unavailable, this should be acknowledged here (see the text below).

A Conclusion section is necessary, where the authors can not only summarize their research but also discuss the policy implications, limitations of the study, and directions for future research.

General comments

I prefer the use of passive voice in academic writing, as it lends a more scholarly and neutral tone. However, I leave it to the editor to decide whether to suggest revising the entire text from active to passive voice.

Internal migration was not considered in the analysis. In a recent study conducted by my colleagues and me, we found that suburban areas are precisely those attracting the largest number of internal migrants, especially when comparing the period before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. If the database allows, I believe it would be beneficial to include this indicator.

The phrase “This aligns” appears repeatedly in similar forms and should be revised.
The broader significance of the findings is also missing; the results need to be placed within a wider context.

 

Specific comments:
Lines 8–9: I suggest that instead of beginning the abstract with a question, the authors start with a broader contextualization of the study topic.
Lines 15–16: Could you please clarify what is meant by the word “opportunity” in the sentence: “This growth is disproportionately concentrated in affluent suburban neighborhoods, suggesting a spatial sorting of opportunity”? Be more specify.
Lines 37–39: It would be advisable to reference more recent literature, preferably not older than five years.
Lines 37–41: The sentence is too long:
“In contrast to the mid-20th-century model of suburbanization, where middle- and upper-middle-class families left the urban core while lower-income residents remained behind (Jackson, 1985), today's suburban growth is marked by heightened demographic diversity and intensified market pressures, often originating within the urban core itself (Frey, 2022; Buchholz, 2022; Pfeiffer, 2012).” Please divide it into two sentences.
Line 47: The phrase “a process historically thought to be exclusive to central” seems to require a citation.
Line 49: “We argue” is unnecessary in this sentence, especially in the introduction. It would be more appropriate in the discussion section. I suggest removing it here.
Lines 52–54: Are there any specific regulations underlying the following claims? “These include minimum lot sizes, lot coverage limits, parking requirements, setback rules (which dictate minimum distances from property lines), height restrictions, and floor area ratio (FAR) caps.” If so, a citation is needed.
Line 60: Why is the word “largely” italicized? Italics are not appropriate for this context in an academic paper.
Line 64: The phrase “We refer to these mismatches as” could be replaced with “These mismatches could be referred to as.”
Line 65: Is it only “restrictiveness” being considered, or might “permissiveness” also be relevant? Please revise the sentence accordingly if necessary.
Lines 68–77: I recommend deleting this section. It is not necessary to present results in the introduction. Instead, use this space to present the research problem and clearly state the research question(s).
Lines 78–87: This section would be more appropriate in the discussion. The part referring to the “gap” in literature should be moved to the end of the literature review to highlight the research gap and justify the present study.
Line 92: Perhaps it would be more appropriate to use “problems” instead of “ills.”

Literature review

Line 100: Please find a more academic synonym for the word “flourished.”
Lines 109–111: “By the end of the Global Financial Crisis in 2010, a majority of the U.S. population resided in suburban areas (Mordechay, 2020; Kneebone, 2017).”
It may be helpful to include a figure to support this statement.

Methods and data:

Line 153: Footnote 1 appears unnecessary. Citing the source for the creation of the National Zoning and Land Use Database should be sufficient. If the authors feel it is essential to list all indicators, it would be more appropriate to do so briefly within the main text.
Line 159: A brief description should be added to explain how the ZRI was constructed as a composite index, including the method used to calculate it.
Line 166: It should be clarified why the proposed classification into four categories was chosen. If it is based on existing literature, cite the source. If the classification is author-defined, explain the rationale for these four categories.
Line 168: The source and the year of the data used should be stated.
Line 173: The abbreviation ZRI can be used exclusively from this point onward, as it has already been introduced.
Lines 178–192: This section should be revised. Table 1 provides a comprehensive overview of all 42 MSAs by ZRI score and corresponding groups. The text repeats figures already shown in the table, and most of the written content can be visually inferred. Therefore, the text should be reformulated to avoid repetition of what is already presented in Table 1.
Line 204: It would be useful to explain why these census tracts were excluded based on missing indicators, and how this decision contributed to or improved the analysis.
Lines 210–211: Is the phrase “and experience of” redundant? Please verify.
Lines 221–229: Please revise this paragraph starting from the second sentence. All numerical values are already presented in Table 2. Avoid this repetition.

Results

Line 271: Please change all text currently written in bold font within this subsection to regular font. Emphasis is unnecessary.
Line 286: I suggest replacing “Age” with “Age structure.”
Lines 300 and 304: Did you mean Table 4?
Line 328 – Figure 2: It would be good to explain, in at least one sentence, why these specific MSAs were selected for presentation.

Suggested changes to the figure:

• Move the legend so that it does not overlap with the map content.
• The color representing “Non-gentrifiable” suburban neighborhoods is too light and difficult to discern. Consider replacing it with a more intense shade of yellow for better visibility.

Discussion

Line 332: Did you mean “population growth”? Please specify.
Lines 336–337: Please use “the driving mechanisms” instead of “the mechanisms that drive this.”
Line 341: Please revise the beginning of the sentence, specifically “They also align with.”
Line 354: Please revise the sentence beginning with “Of course,” to achieve a more formal tone.

 

Final recommendation

Major revisions required

The manuscript offers a promising and valuable contribution to urban geography and planning literature. However, before publication, I recommend that the authors address the structural, stylistic, and analytical concerns raised above, particularly the integration of a conclusion, clearer conceptual framing, and elimination of redundancies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript examines the relationship between zoning, urban growth, and gentrification. The research presents interesting findings based on data from the NZLUD and 42 MSAs. The work is certainly valuable and suitable for the Journal. It can be accepted after addressing the following minor issues:

1. The subheading 2.1 is not necessary, as Section 2 has no other subsections.
2. Table 1: Could you please explain the outlier of Suburban Las Vegas–Henderson–Paradise, NV under the Restrictive Urban–Restrictive Suburban category? The number is quite high (7.09) and seems unusual.
3. The right part of Table 3 appears to be missing.
4. Page 7, lines 212–217: The way gentrifying neighborhoods are defined is somewhat confusing. Could you please elaborate on this and possibly justify your definition with references to existing literature? Demographic changes in age and educational attainment may not be sufficient to define gentrification.
5. Figure 2: The layout should be adjusted to a 2x2 matrix. The top figure is partially cut off and should be repositioned.
6. Overall, I feel that focusing solely on zoning may oversimplify other important factors that influence gentrification and development—such as planning initiatives or local policies. I recommend adding a few sentences or a short paragraph discussing city cases where planning efforts align with or contradict your findings.

Author Response

Thank you for the helpful review. See responses below:

1. The subheading 2.1 is not necessary, as Section 2 has no other subsections.

Response: Thank you, we an additional subheading to section 2- "2.2. The Role of Land Use Regulations"

2. Table 1: Could you please explain the outlier of Suburban Las Vegas–Henderson–Paradise, NV under the Restrictive Urban–Restrictive Suburban category? The number is quite high (7.09) and seems unusual.

Thank you for pointing this out. Las Vegas is indeed an interesting case. We added a short paragraph to the discussion section page 16 that highlights the Las Vegas case, which also addresses your final concern about the limitations of land use regulations as an explanatory force.  "While land use policy plays a central role in shaping metropolitan development, other factors—such as local planning initiatives and environmental constraints—also influence growth trajectories. For example, the Las Vegas metro area ranks high in zoning restrictiveness (See Table 1), yet it has experienced rapid population growth. This pattern is shaped in part by unique geographic and political features: federally owned lands serve as a de facto urban growth boundary, and water scarcity limits outward expansion (Catenaccio, 2011). Such cases underscore how land use regulation operates in tandem with broader forces to shape the built environment of metropolitan areas.

3. The right part of Table 3 appears to be missing.

This has been fixed. Thank you.

4. Page 7, lines 212–217: The way gentrifying neighborhoods are defined is somewhat confusing. Could you please elaborate on this and possibly justify your definition with references to existing literature? Demographic changes in age and educational attainment may not be sufficient to define gentrification.

We emphasis that our approach is similar to and builds on  the methodology of prior studies (Ellen and O’Regan, 2011; Ding et al., 2016; Lee and Perkins, 2023).

5. Figure 2: The layout should be adjusted to a 2x2 matrix. The top figure is partially cut off and should be repositioned.

Thank you. This is now changed to a 2x2.

 

6. Overall, I feel that focusing solely on zoning may oversimplify other important factors that influence gentrification and development—such as planning initiatives or local policies. I recommend adding a few sentences or a short paragraph discussing city cases where planning efforts align with or contradict your findings.

We address this above in critique number 2. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for the considerable effort invested in revising the manuscript in line with the suggestions I previously provided. The authors have incorporated the majority of the recommendations, and for those that were not adopted, they have offered clear and appropriate justifications.

I would kindly encourage the authors to conduct a thorough final review of the manuscript to minimise the stylistic inconsistencies that have arisen during the revision process. For instance, please consider lines 407, 416, and 429, where all three paragraphs begin with the word “While.” Although this does not constitute an error per se, avoiding such repetition would enhance the overall clarity and readability of the text.

I also wish to express my gratitude to the editors for the opportunity and the confidence placed in me to review this manuscript.

I extend my best wishes to the authors and the editorial team for continued success in their future work.

Author Response

Thank you again for your positive feedback. I made the final edits and removed the word "while" from the beginning of some of those paragraphs.