Permissive zoning is a necessary foundation, but it does not build a single unit on its own. As argued in “Why the Housing Shortage Is a Systems Failure: A Real Estate Developer’s Perspective,” housing scarcity emerges from five interdependent systemic constraints: restrictive zoning and land use, inefficient delivery mechanisms, misaligned capital flows, low construction productivity, and underutilization of existing housing stock (Dirksen, 2025). Delivery systems — the procedural pathways from plan approval to building permit to certificate of occupancy — are the execution layer of this framework, and in many U.S. metros they are the binding constraint on how much housing actually gets built (McKinsey Global Institute, 2017).
The approval maze
Across most large U.S. metros, even fully compliant projects must navigate a multi‑agency approval gauntlet before a shovel hits the ground (McKinsey Global Institute, 2017). Typical sequences include planning and zoning review, building department checks, environmental review, and public works or transportation approvals, each with its own timelines, criteria, and discretionary authority (McKinsey Global Institute, 2017; Urban Institute, 2023).
-
Econometric analyses find that sequential, discretionary approvals add roughly 12–36 months to project timelines in major U.S. metros, increasing total development costs by 15–20% through land carry, interest, and consultant fees (McKinsey Global Institute, 2017; Urban Institute, 2023).
-
Even when zoning is permissive on paper, discretionary oversight, redesign requests, and appeal risk create a wedge between theoretical capacity and actual unit delivery (Gyourko, Hartley & Krimmel, 2021).
Insight: Regulatory compliance in the codebook does not equal buildability in practice; execution risk embedded in approvals is often the real cap on housing output.
Discretionary vs. ministerial pathways
Delivery systems differ less by the number of steps than by the degree of discretion embedded in those steps. Ministerial approvals are objective and rule‑based — if a project meets published standards, agencies must issue approvals — while discretionary processes allow subjective interpretation, negotiation, or political pressure at each stage (Ihlanfeldt, 2007; Gyourko, Hartley & Krimmel, 2021).
-
Empirical work links highly discretionary regimes to lower housing supply elasticity and slower unit delivery, even where zoning allows higher density and mid‑rise forms (Gyourko, Hartley & Krimmel, 2021; Quigley & Raphael, 2005).
-
In contrast, ministerial, by‑right pathways enable developers and lenders to model timelines with confidence, expanding the range of mid‑rise infill and 8–12 story transit‑oriented projects that institutional capital can underwrite (Urban Institute, 2023; Dirksen, 2025).
Insight: Predictability — not just permissiveness — is what converts legal capacity into investable, financeable housing projects (Urban Institute, 2023).
The cost of uncertainty
Sequential, discretionary approvals impose a quantifiable “uncertainty tax” on housing production (McKinsey Global Institute, 2017). Every additional subjective checkpoint increases the probability of redesign, delay, or litigation, which capital markets translate into higher risk premiums and narrower investment appetites (Urban Institute, 2023).
-
Capital allocation: Projects exposed to appeal‑prone or politicized approvals face higher required returns; many institutional investors avoid them entirely, concentrating instead on formats and jurisdictions with predictable entitlement risk (Urban Institute, 2023; Gyourko, Hartley & Krimmel, 2021).
-
Construction productivity: Uncertain timelines make it difficult to standardize envelopes or commit to prefab and modular production slots, forfeiting 10–30% potential cost savings and schedule compression from industrialized methods (OECD, 2021; World Economic Forum, 2022).
-
Delivery timelines: Modeling across multiple metros suggests that consolidating and parallelizing approvals can reduce total pre‑construction lead time by 30–50%, directly lowering carrying costs and accelerating unit delivery (McKinsey Global Institute, 2017).
Insight: Delivery uncertainty silently compounds across land, capital, and construction, turning a paper‑feasible project into a marginal or infeasible one long before groundbreak (Dirksen, 2025).
Evidence from streamlined systems
International and domestic reforms demonstrate that execution mechanics materially change housing outcomes without weakening safety or environmental standards (OECD, 2021; Urban Institute, 2023). Jurisdictions that align agencies, front‑load standards, and reserve discretion for truly exceptional cases see more units, faster, at lower per‑unit cost (OECD, 2021).
-
Vienna, Austria aligns planning, building, and environmental review in coordinated, parallel processes, enabling mid‑rise housing to move from conception to construction more quickly while maintaining high design and performance standards (OECD, 2021).
-
In Portland, Oregon, transit corridors that offer ministerial, by‑right approvals for 8–12 story projects have produced higher unit counts and lower per‑unit costs than comparable neighborhoods still governed by discretionary review (Suzuki et al., 2015; Dirksen, 2025).
-
California pilot programs that shifted ADU and certain multifamily approvals to ministerial pathways reported roughly 20–25% higher production over five years with fewer delays and appeals (Urban Institute, 2023).
Insight: When approvals become predictable and parallel rather than discretionary and sequential, zoning reform begins to show up as actual keys in actual doors (Dirksen, 2025).
Systemic interactions within the five‑lever framework
Delivery mechanisms do not operate in isolation; they shape and are shaped by the other four systemic constraints in the five‑lever framework (Dirksen, 2025). In practice, streamlined approvals function as a multiplier on zoning, capital, productivity, and existing stock utilization (Urban Institute, 2023; OECD, 2021).
-
Zoning and land use: By‑right and ministerial approvals convert upzoned capacity into realizable, financed projects rather than speculative paper density (Gyourko, Hartley & Krimmel, 2021).
-
Capital flows: Predictable approvals reduce risk premiums, drawing institutional capital into mid‑rise and TOD formats that were previously perceived as too uncertain (Urban Institute, 2023; McKinsey Global Institute, 2017).
-
Construction productivity: Standardized, pre‑entitled envelopes allow industrialized construction to operate at scale, improving speed and cost performance on repeatable mid‑rise typologies (OECD, 2021; World Economic Forum, 2022).
-
Existing stock: Fast, ministerial pathways for infill, ADUs, and adaptive reuse unlock latent capacity in underutilized parcels and buildings (Urban Institute, 2023; Rocky Mountain Institute, 2022).
Insight: Within the five‑lever systems framework, delivery is the conversion mechanism; without it, zoning reform, capital innovation, and industrialized construction remain underdeployed potential rather than lived housing outcomes.
Policy design: from maze to machine
Reforming delivery mechanisms means redesigning the process architecture so that safety and environmental goals are preserved while maximizing predictability (McKinsey Global Institute, 2017; Dirksen, 2025). The objective is not to remove oversight, but to move from case-by-case negotiation to transparent, rule-based execution, tightly aligned with the other four levers (Urban Institute, 2023).
Key design moves include:
-
Parallel review structures that coordinate planning, building, environmental, and infrastructure approvals under shared timelines and integrated digital tracking (McKinsey Global Institute, 2017; OECD, 2021).
-
Ministerial pathways for clearly defined by‑right housing typologies, especially 4–8 story mid‑rise and 8–12 story TOD projects that meet published design, massing, and performance standards (Suzuki et al., 2015).
-
Centralized development concierge units empowered to resolve inter‑agency conflicts, maintain accountability for timelines, and provide a single point of contact for complex projects.
-
Limited, objective appeals focused on material code or process violations rather than subjective design preferences or generalized opposition (Ihlanfeldt, 2007; Quigley & Raphael, 2005).
Insight: When cities treat delivery systems as critical infrastructure — engineered, monitored, and continuously improved alongside zoning, capital, construction, and existing stock — they convert policy intent into predictable, repeatable housing production at scale.
