R-25-167: Albuquerque Experiments with Meaningful Zoning Reform. What the Proposal Gets Right and Why Albuquerque Needs to Go Further
In cities across America, the price of housing has soared but in Albuquerque, the pressure has been especially acute. Homelessness has climbed, rents have outpaced wages, and for most working families, buying a home feels increasingly out of reach.
Today, only 13.5% of renters in Albuquerque can afford the median home at the median income1. That’s not a small gap but an incredibly broken housing ladder we should be working to repair.
Some people argue that we don’t have a housing crisis. They claim that the numbers are exaggerated or that things will eventually sort themselves out. But that’s not what we hear from families living with roommates well into adulthood, or seniors worried they’ll be priced out of the neighborhoods they’ve lived in for decades. It’s not what we hear from employers who can’t recruit or retain workers because there’s nowhere affordable for them to live. It’s also not supported by the data2.
The truth is that housing in Albuquerque has gotten harder to build, not easier. Zoning restrictions adopted decades ago were never meant to serve a growing, dynamic city. Many were designed specifically to keep neighborhoods the same—to preserve exclusion, not affordability. And those rules are now holding us back.
That’s why the Opt-In Zoning Conversion Plan (R-25-167) matters.
Here’s what it does: R-25-167 would create a new, voluntary, one-time process where property owners in residential zones like R-1 can apply to modestly increase the types of homes allowed on their lots. In most cases, that means allowing duplexes or townhouses (R-T), or small apartments (R-ML) on corner lots or along busier streets. In some cases, it would allow mixed-use zoning (MX-T or MX-L), enabling a home-based business or corner café that serves the neighborhood. The plan also opens the door for commercial properties, many of which sit half-empty, to opt into zoning that allows medium-density housing and neighborhood-serving businesses. This isn’t a free-for-all. It’s a targeted, incremental strategy to meet housing demand where infrastructure already exists.
While some opponents frame policies like this as radical, R-25-167 is actually a cautious, one-time opportunity. It allows individual property owners to opt in to modest zoning changes with guardrails and council oversight. In fact, it’s more conservative than the widespread reforms seen in cities like Portland, Austin, Sacramento, or Minneapolis. We’re encouraged to see Albuquerque getting its toes wet on thoughtful zoning reform but to truly solve our housing crisis, we’ll eventually need to dive in.
Opportunities
This proposal doesn’t force any property owner to do anything. What it does is create a framework for homeowners and landlords who want to add a small apartment, a duplex, or a mixed-use corner shop to request a change and then go through a Planning Department led process.
It’s not a giveaway. It’s not “developer rule.” It’s a voluntary, case-by-case approach that includes planning staff, public input, and final approval by City Council.
If you like your neighborhood the way it is, great! But if your neighbor wants to house a relative, create a rental unit to help pay the mortgage, or build a corner coffee shop that serves the community, this plan gives them a pathway to that freedom.
And yet, some will say that even this modest change “violates neighborhood character.” But we should ask: what kind of character are we protecting if it can’t withstand the presence of a duplex or a new neighbor on the block? When we start from the belief that any addition, be it of homes, of people, of life, is inherently harmful, we reveal that what’s really being protected isn’t architecture or trees. It’s social exclusion, white supremacy, and xenophobia.
In a healthy city, neighbors don’t get to veto someone else’s attempt to house a relative, make a home more affordable, or build a small business—especially when it causes no harm, no pollution, and no noise beyond the ordinary sounds of people living. If the mere presence of new neighbors feels like a threat, then it’s not the zoning amendment that’s the problem. The problem is the definition of neighborhood character and the attitudes and hearts of those wielding that term.
What Comes Next: A Truly Citywide Vision
R-25-167 is an important step forward, not just because of what it allows, but because of how it frames the problem. For the first time in years, our city is considering a proposal that’s not limited to a single corridor, district, or overlay. It invites every neighborhood to be part of the solution.
But we can’t stop here.
To truly build a stronger, more inclusive Albuquerque, we need to move beyond zoning categories like R-1 (single-family zoning requiring detached homes with wide setbacks) that were designed to limit growth and preserve exclusivity. Instead of using R-ML, our small-scale residential multifamily zone as a special exception, we should treat it as the default. R-ML allows for what cities like Albuquerque used to build: duplexes, triplexes, courtyard apartments, and small multifamily structures that fit within the scale of a neighborhood and provide a base for commerce, activity, affordability, and livability.
Making R-ML the base residential zoning citywide wouldn’t ban single-detached homes. It would simply make space for more housing choices which is great for young families, for retirees, for teachers and service workers, for newcomers, and for the next generation. It would bring our zoning code in line with how cities actually grow: incrementally, adaptively, and in response to the needs of people. It would also bring us in line with the aforementioned cities such as Minneapolis and Austin that are growing beyond the racist conceits of mid-century planning.
R-25-167 shows what’s possible. Now let’s build on it and advocate for what we deserve: livability, urbanism, and access.
Filtering and the Housing Ladder
Some critics say these changes won’t produce enough “affordable” housing to matter. But this misunderstands how housing markets work.
Housing operates like a chain. If we only build luxury units, then wealthier residents stay in them—but if we build nothing at all, those same residents bid up older, cheaper homes, driving out lower-income tenants. This is how displacement works.
By adding more homes at all price points, we relieve pressure on every rung of the housing ladder. That’s what economists call filtering and it’s one of the few mechanisms we have that actually works.
And if we’re serious about fighting displacement and gentrification, we have to stop concentrating growth in just a few “upzoned” neighborhoods. These are often those that have already experienced historic disinvestment. The only real way to prevent displacement is to legalize housing growth citywide. When every neighborhood can absorb some of the demand for housing, no single community bears the brunt of change.
Gentrification thrives where housing is scarce. It fades when cities make room for everyone and open the door to abundance. All neighborhoods deserve investment, neighbors, and opportunity, not just the ones without the political power to say no.
Yes, we need deeply subsidized housing, especially for those at the bottom. But that’s not an argument against zoning reform. It’s an argument for doing both.
Why Zoning Reform Still Matters Even When (Especially When) Construction Is Hard
Some opponents argue that changing zoning won’t help because building costs are too high. Issues like tariffs, inflation, and supply chain issues have made construction more expensive across the board.
But that’s precisely why land-use reform matters now more than ever.
When building is hard and margins are thin, every barrier we remove helps. Right now, our zoning code makes many common-sense projects impossible like a triplex on a corner lot, or a mixed-use building with apartments above a small café. Even if a builder wants to take on that risk, outdated zoning rules often block the project before it even starts.
Zoning reform doesn’t solve every problem, but it clears the path. It allows more sites to be feasible. It reduces the time and legal risk that developers (and nonprofits) face when trying to add new housing. In a tough economy, streamlining approval and allowing more flexibility can be the difference between a project penciling out or never happening at all.
If we do nothing, we’re locking ourselves into the worst of both worlds: high construction costs and regulatory barriers that prevent creative, small-scale solutions.
When we fall into the idea that reforms aren’t necessary due to construction costs, or that there are other fish to fry, we like to think we’re being cautious. In reality, we’re just stuck. The language of “careful, thoughtful planning” is often a NIMBY trap, used to justify inaction. But we’re capable of more. We can make thoughtful plans and move forward. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
And while the market may be uncertain now, it won’t stay that way forever. When construction picks up again, and it will, we need to be ready. That means having the right zoning and permitting systems in place so we’re not caught flat-footed when developers come knocking.
Right now, our process is too slow. In some cases, it takes months or even years to get a permit approved. That is long enough for economic conditions to shift and projects to fall apart before they break ground. That’s a missed opportunity that leads to “for sale” signs on empty lots or dilapidated structures.
By updating, streamlining, and modernizing our zoning code today, we’re not just responding to the present but also future-proofing our city. We’re getting ready for the next wave of investment, so we can welcome it with open doors, not more red tape. For those that CAN build now, we are making it easier for them to operate, creating a better environment for homebuilders, and helping them weather what can often be a turbulent storm.
We can’t control the global price of concrete or US and Canadian lumber tariffs but we can stop blocking buildings that used to be legal and still make sense.
Reclaiming Neighborhood Character
The most durable neighborhoods in Albuquerque are the ones that evolved before zoning. The ones with corner stores, multiplexes, apartments above garages or shops, and multifamily structures without acres of parking lots. These are the places that welcomed newcomers and allowed growth to happen incrementally and organically.
R-25-167 doesn’t abolish, destroy, or threaten neighborhoods. To argue that is simply absurd. But it does help restore the kind of neighborhoods Albuquerque used to build, and the kind we need to build again.
If we really care about neighborhood character, then we should care first and foremost about the people who make up a neighborhood. That means caring about keeping the next generation here, about making sure older residents can downsize without leaving their block, about providing homes near jobs, schools, and transit and not just for those who already own property, but for everyone.
Because character doesn’t come from rooflines, setbacks, or single-use zoning. It comes from the characters of the neighborhood: the people who live, work, and grow there. That’s what makes a place worth protecting. That other stuff? It’s just not important.
That’s how we preserve what matters.
Let’s push the City Council to move us forward.
Reimagining Albuquerque 
Leave a comment