6 ms·

I don't understand the tweet early in the article. It seems to imply that cities aren't accommodating enough of people with alternative lifestyles? They're more

I don't understand the tweet early in the article. It seems to imply that cities aren't accommodating enough of people with alternative lifestyles? They're more accommodating than anywhere else. Maybe I'm reading what the author meant backwards. In any case, we are currently working out as a society how to make cities livable as more and more people try to move into the same space, but I don't think bringing up distinctions like straight/gay, liberal/conservative, etc. is very productive. And developers don't build single family homes in the suburbs and luxury highrises downtown for nefarious reasons. They build them there because you make more money that way.

apsec112 9y ago
In the US, cities and development are essentially centrally planned. For any given piece of land, the city dictates exactly what kind of building can go there, how tall, how wide, how many stores or housing units, what kind of businesses can be there (if retail/commercial), how large the yards are, where the building is on the lot, etc., often down to things like the color of paint on the window shutters. It's illegal to build luxury skyscrapers in the suburbs. Indeed, it's illegal to build anything except detached single family houses with two parking spaces on plots of land measuring 100 feet by 80 feet with twenty feet of side yard and fifteen feet of front yard and two stories tall but with the second story having half the floor area of the first story and etc etc etc., the laws are very detailed and give zero room for any variations.
- jeffreyrogers 9y ago
  Sure, but zoning is largely done for economic reasons. And cities without zoning (e.g. Houston) end up similar to cities with it. I don't think it changes that there's not an active effort to segregate cities or keep people with alternative lifestyles away.[0] [0]: There was some of this in NYC when Robert Moses was the central planner, but it's hard to argue it's continued today.
  - oftenwrong 9y ago
    Houston doesn't have zoning, but it has development regulations that include many of the same restrictions found in the zoning codes of other US cities. https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/ https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/
    - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
      From the webpage: "The City codes do not address land use." These regulations appear to deal with things like setbacks, street access, etc. but it sounds like you can do whatever you want on the land. I think these regulations are just to deal with how to divide up a parcel of land, rather than to regulate anything you do with it.
      - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        A huge portion of most zoning codes is made up of that kind of regulations. Land use restrictions are only one tiny aspect of zoning regulations.
    - tbihl 9y ago
      And, independent of local zoning, our financial system drives hard for the type of stuff that zoning also reinforces. When easy capital supports single family houses and large projects, everything in between is crowded out.
      - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
        That was the point I was trying to make above. Zoning is more a reflection of what is most profitable for developers, so you get similar results in cities with zoning and without.
  - nrook 9y ago
    https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/rental-market/apartment-rent-report/rentcafe-apartment-market-report-june-2017/ https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/rental-market/apartment-rent-r... According to this site, rental prices in Houston were less than a third of prices in San Francisco in June 2017 ($1046 vs $3441). That sort of difference is certainly going to drive away less affluent people.
- contrahax 9y ago
  Out of the 30ish thousand cities in the US how many have insane zoning policies like that? You might be thinking of HOA rules or CC&Rs, which are not centrally planned by the government. I agree that most zoning is stupid/overboard but your examples are just not true. I'm sure you can find some examples that are overly strict but for the most part we're just talking density (how many stories can it be) and usage.
  - apsec112 9y ago
    Virtually all of them do. If you don't believe me, please do read your neighborhood's zoning code. I have no idea where you live, but if it's in the US and outside of a handful of neighborhoods built before WWII and grandfathered in (Manhattan, downtown Chicago, etc.), I'll bet you $100 to $10 that there are rules pretty much like what I described. EDIT: Here is an excerpt from the zoning code of Newark, Delaware, a random smallish city I happened to visit five years ago: "(1) Minimum lot area. Except as specified in Article XVI, Section 32-56.2(a) of this chapter, the minimum lot area for any dwelling or permitted nonresidential use, together with accessory buildings, shall be as follows: a. RH—One-half acre. b. RT—15,000 square feet. c. RS—9,000 square feet. (2) Maximum lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage for any building, exclusive of accessory buildings, shall be 20%, and the total maximum lot coverage, including any building, accessory buildings, and manmade improvements on the ground surface which are more impervious than the natural surface and which are used for parking and driveways, but not including swimming pools, patios, terraces, outdoor grills, and similar facilities not intended for parking, shall be 44%. (3) Minimum lot width. Except as specified in Article XVI, Section 32-56.2(b) of this chapter, the minimum width of a lot shall be as follows: a. RH—100 feet. b. RT—90 feet. c. RS—75 feet." It goes on like this for hundreds and hundreds of pages.
Karrot_Kream 9y ago
I believe (though am not sure) that the tweet is posed in the context of San Francisco Bay Area. The Sunset neighborhood, which is shown in subsequent pictures, is a neighborhood with remarkably lower density than the neighborhoods in SF that lie East of Stanyan. Likewise, the proposal to ensure that zoning is more permissive around mass transit stops (pushed by Weiner) is specifically attacking cities that have refused to increase zoning density despite the inflix of residents. I also do think bringing up this distinction is important. A conservative, landed gentry has controlled Bay Area cities and their zoning laws for decades now and are ferociously resisting a change to their ideas of normal. The article presents examples with how this gentry specifically casts the pro-urban Bloc, with a hammer and sickle flag, and hippie clothing, not to mention the minorities falling out of the buildings. Folks who made those images seem to explicitly see high density housing as not only an affront to the look of the neighborhood, but an afront on their values. To deny that this is a war between 2 different views of the way a city should behave culturally, and to explicitly ignore the anti-queer and anti-minority imagery, is to be both intellectually dishonest and inaccurate.
- jeffreyrogers 9y ago
  I don't know anything about San Francisco, so I can't comment on any anti-queer/anti-minority imagery. The article certainly didn't provide evidence for it. But is this really a liberal vs. conservative issue? I've heard Berkeley has similar NIMBYism, and that's a very liberal area, right? Is Sunset really that conservative?
  - Karrot_Kream 9y ago
    You're right, the article didn't provide evidence for it, though it did add two pictures with anti-minority and anti-hippie imagery (without attribution). > But is this really a liberal vs. conservative issue? I wish I could provide you something more than this, but in my anecdotal experience as a minority in many ways, yes. I don't have the statistical evidence to agree or disagree though. > I've heard Berkeley has similar NIMBYism, and that's a very liberal area, right? Berkeley has less of it (again, in my anecdotal experience as a minority) than most other parts of the Bay. Most of Berkeley's NIMBYism seems to be confined to parts around North Berkeley. > Is Sunset really that conservative? From my time in the neighborhood, yes. It was older and more racially segregated than other parts of SF for sure. The neighborhood tended to be split into Chinese (mostly Cantonese) and white sections, and even when neighbors were of different races, most people stuck to a clique. Residents were also much older (older than my parents). Again though, this is just my anecdotal experience.
closeparen 9y ago
Bringing more “normal,” traditionally suburban people into cities dilutes the countercultures currently living there, and the suburban middle class tends to outcompete the existing counterculture when space is reallocated through the market. This leads to policies that minimize the role of the market in allocating urban space.

apsec112 9y ago

In the US, cities and development are essentially centrally planned. For any given piece of land, the city dictates exactly what kind of building can go there, how tall, how wide, how many stores or housing units, what kind of businesses can be there (if retail/commercial), how large the yards are, where the building is on the lot, etc., often down to things like the color of paint on the window shutters. It's illegal to build luxury skyscrapers in the suburbs. Indeed, it's illegal to build anything except detached single family houses with two parking spaces on plots of land measuring 100 feet by 80 feet with twenty feet of side yard and fifteen feet of front yard and two stories tall but with the second story having half the floor area of the first story and etc etc etc., the laws are very detailed and give zero room for any variations.

jeffreyrogers 9y ago
Sure, but zoning is largely done for economic reasons. And cities without zoning (e.g. Houston) end up similar to cities with it. I don't think it changes that there's not an active effort to segregate cities or keep people with alternative lifestyles away.[0] [0]: There was some of this in NYC when Robert Moses was the central planner, but it's hard to argue it's continued today.
- oftenwrong 9y ago
  Houston doesn't have zoning, but it has development regulations that include many of the same restrictions found in the zoning codes of other US cities. https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/ https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/DevelopRegs/
  - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
    From the webpage: "The City codes do not address land use." These regulations appear to deal with things like setbacks, street access, etc. but it sounds like you can do whatever you want on the land. I think these regulations are just to deal with how to divide up a parcel of land, rather than to regulate anything you do with it.
    - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
      A huge portion of most zoning codes is made up of that kind of regulations. Land use restrictions are only one tiny aspect of zoning regulations.
  - tbihl 9y ago
    And, independent of local zoning, our financial system drives hard for the type of stuff that zoning also reinforces. When easy capital supports single family houses and large projects, everything in between is crowded out.
    - jeffreyrogers 9y ago
      That was the point I was trying to make above. Zoning is more a reflection of what is most profitable for developers, so you get similar results in cities with zoning and without.
- nrook 9y ago
  https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/rental-market/apartment-rent-report/rentcafe-apartment-market-report-june-2017/ https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/rental-market/apartment-rent-r... According to this site, rental prices in Houston were less than a third of prices in San Francisco in June 2017 ($1046 vs $3441). That sort of difference is certainly going to drive away less affluent people.
contrahax 9y ago
Out of the 30ish thousand cities in the US how many have insane zoning policies like that? You might be thinking of HOA rules or CC&Rs, which are not centrally planned by the government. I agree that most zoning is stupid/overboard but your examples are just not true. I'm sure you can find some examples that are overly strict but for the most part we're just talking density (how many stories can it be) and usage.
- apsec112 9y ago
  Virtually all of them do. If you don't believe me, please do read your neighborhood's zoning code. I have no idea where you live, but if it's in the US and outside of a handful of neighborhoods built before WWII and grandfathered in (Manhattan, downtown Chicago, etc.), I'll bet you $100 to $10 that there are rules pretty much like what I described. EDIT: Here is an excerpt from the zoning code of Newark, Delaware, a random smallish city I happened to visit five years ago: "(1) Minimum lot area. Except as specified in Article XVI, Section 32-56.2(a) of this chapter, the minimum lot area for any dwelling or permitted nonresidential use, together with accessory buildings, shall be as follows: a. RH—One-half acre. b. RT—15,000 square feet. c. RS—9,000 square feet. (2) Maximum lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage for any building, exclusive of accessory buildings, shall be 20%, and the total maximum lot coverage, including any building, accessory buildings, and manmade improvements on the ground surface which are more impervious than the natural surface and which are used for parking and driveways, but not including swimming pools, patios, terraces, outdoor grills, and similar facilities not intended for parking, shall be 44%. (3) Minimum lot width. Except as specified in Article XVI, Section 32-56.2(b) of this chapter, the minimum width of a lot shall be as follows: a. RH—100 feet. b. RT—90 feet. c. RS—75 feet." It goes on like this for hundreds and hundreds of pages.

Karrot_Kream 9y ago

I believe (though am not sure) that the tweet is posed in the context of San Francisco Bay Area. The Sunset neighborhood, which is shown in subsequent pictures, is a neighborhood with remarkably lower density than the neighborhoods in SF that lie East of Stanyan. Likewise, the proposal to ensure that zoning is more permissive around mass transit stops (pushed by Weiner) is specifically attacking cities that have refused to increase zoning density despite the inflix of residents. I also do think bringing up this distinction is important. A conservative, landed gentry has controlled Bay Area cities and their zoning laws for decades now and are ferociously resisting a change to their ideas of normal. The article presents examples with how this gentry specifically casts the pro-urban Bloc, with a hammer and sickle flag, and hippie clothing, not to mention the minorities falling out of the buildings. Folks who made those images seem to explicitly see high density housing as not only an affront to the look of the neighborhood, but an afront on their values. To deny that this is a war between 2 different views of the way a city should behave culturally, and to explicitly ignore the anti-queer and anti-minority imagery, is to be both intellectually dishonest and inaccurate.

jeffreyrogers 9y ago
I don't know anything about San Francisco, so I can't comment on any anti-queer/anti-minority imagery. The article certainly didn't provide evidence for it. But is this really a liberal vs. conservative issue? I've heard Berkeley has similar NIMBYism, and that's a very liberal area, right? Is Sunset really that conservative?
- Karrot_Kream 9y ago
  You're right, the article didn't provide evidence for it, though it did add two pictures with anti-minority and anti-hippie imagery (without attribution). > But is this really a liberal vs. conservative issue? I wish I could provide you something more than this, but in my anecdotal experience as a minority in many ways, yes. I don't have the statistical evidence to agree or disagree though. > I've heard Berkeley has similar NIMBYism, and that's a very liberal area, right? Berkeley has less of it (again, in my anecdotal experience as a minority) than most other parts of the Bay. Most of Berkeley's NIMBYism seems to be confined to parts around North Berkeley. > Is Sunset really that conservative? From my time in the neighborhood, yes. It was older and more racially segregated than other parts of SF for sure. The neighborhood tended to be split into Chinese (mostly Cantonese) and white sections, and even when neighbors were of different races, most people stuck to a clique. Residents were also much older (older than my parents). Again though, this is just my anecdotal experience.

closeparen 9y ago

Bringing more “normal,” traditionally suburban people into cities dilutes the countercultures currently living there, and the suburban middle class tends to outcompete the existing counterculture when space is reallocated through the market. This leads to policies that minimize the role of the market in allocating urban space.