Edward Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko write,

Empirical investigations of the local costs and benefits of restricting building generally conclude that the negative externalities are not nearly large enough to justify the costs of regulation. Adding the costs from substitute building in other markets generally strengthens this conclusion, as Glaeser and Kahn (2010) show that in America building restrictions are higher in places that have lower carbon emissions per household. If California’s restrictions induce more building in Texas and Arizona, then their net environmental effect could be negative in aggregate. If restrictions on building limit an efficient geographical reallocation of labor, then estimates based on local externalities would miss this effect, too.

Read the whole paper, or at least the conclusion.