6 ms·

I genuinely don't get the point. Of course the buildings aren't legal under current zoning laws. They weren't built under current zoning laws! We don't tear dow

I genuinely don't get the point. Of course the buildings aren't legal under current zoning laws. They weren't built under current zoning laws! We don't tear down every skyscraper whenever the earthquake requirements change. Nobody moves their house when the setback requirement goes from 8' to 12'. These kinds of articles are tautological. edit: the article mentions "illegal neighborhoods and illegal houses" but doesn't say anything about the laws when they were built.

chc 10y ago
The point seemed pretty clear to me from reading the article: The author is questioning whether zoning laws actually reflect what we want in a city, given that they would prevent well-liked places such as Somerville from having been built the way they are.
- zanny 10y ago
  The laws reflect what those with the money to influence decision makers want in property allocation - maximum long term value through line item qualifications of a properties worth, rather than how useful that property actually is. But it comes full circle, because at the end of the day these properties must have a foundational estimate of value based on what everyone thinks of them. As long as most people agree an acre yard 3 car garage and wall around your land to hide the neighbors is optimal, at least a block away from any highly trafficked street, that is what you get.
ianmiers 10y ago
The argument isn't about building code (e.g. safety standards) but more so zoning about neighborhood character. The author's point is that the type of higher density housing that actually makes up Somerville could not be built under current zoning laws even if safe and allowed under modern building code. Now, it's entirely possible the dataset the author is using to justify his position actually covers things that are safety issues.
graeme 10y ago
You're focussing on a nit. The situation is not "the neighbourhood is generally fine, but would need some tweaks for the fire code" The situation is: it's impossible to build a neighbourhood resembling somerville under current zoning laws. I live in a prewar neighbourhood in Montreal. It's dense, beautiful, and loved by locals and tourists alike. If you could clone it and build it elsewhere, it would be worth trillions to cities across North America. But it's illegal to build, because the streets are too narrow, there isn't enough parking, there is a mix of residential buildings and businesses, the buildings aren't set back far enough, and so on.
- tropo 10y ago
  Novelty brings value to things that would otherwise be junk. We don't actually want narrow streets, lack of parking, and pedestrians looking in our windows. The novelty makes it cute though. If neighborhoods like yours were common, they would have no value.
  - enoch_r 10y ago
    You may be right for most people! I'm sure you're right for yourself. As someone who lives in such a neighborhood (and lived for two years attempting to survive biking and walking among the plentiful parking, wide streets, and zero pedestrians of suburban Los Angeles) you are very wrong for me. Regardless, I just wish that the US government (and the vast majority of state and local governments) would stop making the choice for all of us with massive explicit and implicit subsidies for motor-vehicle-optimized travel.
  - krisdol 10y ago
    As a resident of near-downtown Boston, I want cars out of my neighborhood, ideally the entire downtown. I love the wide sidewalks and want bigger ones. Mostly I'm jealous that we can achieve neither the efficiency nor the beauty of transportation in Central European cities like Zürich because the suburbanites, their remote matchboxes, and their eyesore parking garages are obstacles to every proposal to improve (or even maintain) public transportation. To choke those folks out of the area with narrow streets and zero-car zones would be a blessing. Although a more effective solution would be to scrap zoning laws and actually make the suburban blight towns convenient for workers and pedestrian residents.
Lazare 10y ago
You're missing the point. What's being said is this: 1. People highly praise city/town/neighborhood X for its density, walkability, livibility, sustainability, and other quality of life elements. 2. That city/town/neighbourhood could not be built today because of laws which explicitly ban the things which make it so highly praised. If it was destroyed in an earthquake, it couldn't be rebuilt in any form which shared the attributes which made it loved. This isn't about earthquake strengthening; it's about density, parking, transport, multi-family dwellings, mixed-use neighborhoods, etc. An ocean of ink has been spilled on the problems of suburbs full of single-family homes (and zero commercial presence), but our laws frequently require that, regardless of the preferences of consumers. (More generally: The argument for zoning laws is that local government knows better than residents what the people really want, and what makes for a good city. That does not seem to reflect reality.)
- georgefox 10y ago
  This comment likely also misses the point, but the zoning laws are not really intended to cover situations where the entire city is destroyed and rebuilt. Realistically, if the city were rebuilt from scratch today, much of what people love about it now would be gone regardless of zoning laws. It seems like it's theoretically possible for residents and visitors in a given city to enjoy its current building stock while simultaneously desiring different standards for new construction. Whether or not that is the case in Somerville, I don't really know, but a statement that the city couldn't legally be built from scratch the same way today doesn't necessarily imply (in my mind) that the zoning laws are illegitimate. I get that there are other issues here too, of course.
  - Lazare 10y ago
    > It seems like it's theoretically possible for residents and visitors in a given city to enjoy its current building stock while simultaneously desiring different standards for new construction. Is it? Can you explain why this would be so? Or even better, provide any evidence that this is true in any of the locations people have been discussing (Montreal, Somerville, Manhattan, Portland, etc.?) Let's drill down and focus in particular on laws about multi-family dwellings. What logic would make them good when they already exist, but bad if you wanted to build more, and even bad if you wanted rebuild them after a natural disaster?
wcummings 10y ago
The irony is that the laws are intended to protect Somerville's "character" and "charm". This article lacks some context. The housing market here (I live in Somerville) is red fucking hot. Somerville desperately needs more housing, especially high density housing.
- eropple 10y ago
  Agreed. I'm moving to Malden because I can't spend this kind of money.
ocschwar 10y ago
It's easier to understand when you visit Somerville. Somerville is awesome. It leaves you wondering why we can;t have more towns like it. And this is the answer: because building Somerville today would be illegal.
- jghn 10y ago
  I live in Somerville. Our lot is zoned commercial and part of my kitchen is technically in the street we abut. That's just how we roll here!

chc 10y ago

The point seemed pretty clear to me from reading the article: The author is questioning whether zoning laws actually reflect what we want in a city, given that they would prevent well-liked places such as Somerville from having been built the way they are.

zanny 10y ago
The laws reflect what those with the money to influence decision makers want in property allocation - maximum long term value through line item qualifications of a properties worth, rather than how useful that property actually is. But it comes full circle, because at the end of the day these properties must have a foundational estimate of value based on what everyone thinks of them. As long as most people agree an acre yard 3 car garage and wall around your land to hide the neighbors is optimal, at least a block away from any highly trafficked street, that is what you get.

ianmiers 10y ago

The argument isn't about building code (e.g. safety standards) but more so zoning about neighborhood character. The author's point is that the type of higher density housing that actually makes up Somerville could not be built under current zoning laws even if safe and allowed under modern building code. Now, it's entirely possible the dataset the author is using to justify his position actually covers things that are safety issues.

graeme 10y ago

You're focussing on a nit. The situation is not "the neighbourhood is generally fine, but would need some tweaks for the fire code" The situation is: it's impossible to build a neighbourhood resembling somerville under current zoning laws. I live in a prewar neighbourhood in Montreal. It's dense, beautiful, and loved by locals and tourists alike. If you could clone it and build it elsewhere, it would be worth trillions to cities across North America. But it's illegal to build, because the streets are too narrow, there isn't enough parking, there is a mix of residential buildings and businesses, the buildings aren't set back far enough, and so on.

tropo 10y ago
Novelty brings value to things that would otherwise be junk. We don't actually want narrow streets, lack of parking, and pedestrians looking in our windows. The novelty makes it cute though. If neighborhoods like yours were common, they would have no value.
- enoch_r 10y ago
  You may be right for most people! I'm sure you're right for yourself. As someone who lives in such a neighborhood (and lived for two years attempting to survive biking and walking among the plentiful parking, wide streets, and zero pedestrians of suburban Los Angeles) you are very wrong for me. Regardless, I just wish that the US government (and the vast majority of state and local governments) would stop making the choice for all of us with massive explicit and implicit subsidies for motor-vehicle-optimized travel.
- krisdol 10y ago
  As a resident of near-downtown Boston, I want cars out of my neighborhood, ideally the entire downtown. I love the wide sidewalks and want bigger ones. Mostly I'm jealous that we can achieve neither the efficiency nor the beauty of transportation in Central European cities like Zürich because the suburbanites, their remote matchboxes, and their eyesore parking garages are obstacles to every proposal to improve (or even maintain) public transportation. To choke those folks out of the area with narrow streets and zero-car zones would be a blessing. Although a more effective solution would be to scrap zoning laws and actually make the suburban blight towns convenient for workers and pedestrian residents.

Lazare 10y ago

You're missing the point. What's being said is this: 1. People highly praise city/town/neighborhood X for its density, walkability, livibility, sustainability, and other quality of life elements. 2. That city/town/neighbourhood could not be built today because of laws which explicitly ban the things which make it so highly praised. If it was destroyed in an earthquake, it couldn't be rebuilt in any form which shared the attributes which made it loved. This isn't about earthquake strengthening; it's about density, parking, transport, multi-family dwellings, mixed-use neighborhoods, etc. An ocean of ink has been spilled on the problems of suburbs full of single-family homes (and zero commercial presence), but our laws frequently require that, regardless of the preferences of consumers. (More generally: The argument for zoning laws is that local government knows better than residents what the people really want, and what makes for a good city. That does not seem to reflect reality.)

georgefox 10y ago
This comment likely also misses the point, but the zoning laws are not really intended to cover situations where the entire city is destroyed and rebuilt. Realistically, if the city were rebuilt from scratch today, much of what people love about it now would be gone regardless of zoning laws. It seems like it's theoretically possible for residents and visitors in a given city to enjoy its current building stock while simultaneously desiring different standards for new construction. Whether or not that is the case in Somerville, I don't really know, but a statement that the city couldn't legally be built from scratch the same way today doesn't necessarily imply (in my mind) that the zoning laws are illegitimate. I get that there are other issues here too, of course.
- Lazare 10y ago
  > It seems like it's theoretically possible for residents and visitors in a given city to enjoy its current building stock while simultaneously desiring different standards for new construction. Is it? Can you explain why this would be so? Or even better, provide any evidence that this is true in any of the locations people have been discussing (Montreal, Somerville, Manhattan, Portland, etc.?) Let's drill down and focus in particular on laws about multi-family dwellings. What logic would make them good when they already exist, but bad if you wanted to build more, and even bad if you wanted rebuild them after a natural disaster?

wcummings 10y ago

The irony is that the laws are intended to protect Somerville's "character" and "charm". This article lacks some context. The housing market here (I live in Somerville) is red fucking hot. Somerville desperately needs more housing, especially high density housing.

eropple 10y ago
Agreed. I'm moving to Malden because I can't spend this kind of money.

ocschwar 10y ago

It's easier to understand when you visit Somerville. Somerville is awesome. It leaves you wondering why we can;t have more towns like it. And this is the answer: because building Somerville today would be illegal.

jghn 10y ago
I live in Somerville. Our lot is zoned commercial and part of my kitchen is technically in the street we abut. That's just how we roll here!