4 ms·
The setbacks complaint seems mainly to be that locals can't privatize, or otherwise restrict usage of, public spaces.
by wang_li 7y ago
The setbacks complaint seems mainly to be that locals can't privatize, or otherwise restrict usage of, public spaces.
- jessriedel 7y agoHow does having my house near the street on my lot restrict public usage of the street?
- cannonedhamster 7y agoThe sidewalk. And the street right of way extends beyond just the physical street in most places.
- asdff 7y agoYour lot usually doesn't include the sidewalk or the treelawn for that matter, although you are usually held responsible for its maintenance.
- jessriedel 7y agoThis comment is pedantic. Yes, there are special regulations about homeowners in some areas having to place and maintain sidewalks along their property. (In other areas, they are owned and/or maintained by the city.) That's very distinct from setbacks, which prohibit construction for a depth much further than the width of the sidewalk.
- logfromblammo 7y agoThe combination of setback and building height limit establishes the maximum amount of natural sunlight that your building can block from your neighbors, and the adjoining street. I believe the template for setbacks and height limits came from New York City, wherein a new 40-story building cast a good deal of the surrounding neighborhood into permanent shadow. As the "Ancient Lights" doctrine of English property law had been repudiated in America, and the Prescription Act 1832 obviously came after independence, the neighborhood incumbents had no real legal grounds for complaint. This disturbed enough people that New York passed its first architectural restriction laws. Land-use restrictions basically came out of racists trying to legislate segregation. Those nuisance laws combined with architecture laws to birth modern zoning. Once that camel's nose entered the tent, the rest of the camel came right in. Every problem that has a nexus with private land use had an attempted zoning solution attempted somewhere. So things like parking-space allotments and environmental impact assessments were added. The NIMBYs could halt developments they didn't like by dealing the death of a thousand permits and public hearings through the zoning laws.
- jessriedel 7y agoThis isn't privatizing or restricting usage of a public space.
- logfromblammo 7y agoI believe the argument centers upon enjoyment of natural light, which was a long-standing matter of right in English property law, that did not carry over to American law even as the people continued to expect it as their right. I think there was a law in Boston regarding buildings that cast shadows onto public parks that affected the height of a building quite some distance away, as it would have cast less than an hour of shadow on a few autumn days, on one corner of the park. Setbacks and height limits have always been about the fear of turning the city into a maze of dark corridors, bounded by high walls. The zoning planners wanted sunlight to fall upon the streets. They may have overestimated the public's lust for light. A lot of us prefer that everything we wish to reach be within walking distance of our homes, and there are vitamin D pills to be swallowed and SAD lightboxes to stare into, to make up for the loss.
- jessriedel 7y agoI was trying to narrowly critique wang_li's comment, not debate the main issue.
- logfromblammo 7y agoAh. Hopefully you, and anyone else reading, understand now the argument as to why a private construction that comes close to a public space, but without actually touching it, might be considered to be depriving the public of the full use of that public space. It's a similar argument as to why some people who live in the desert are not allowed to collect the rainwater that falls upon their property. Apparently sometimes you can own the weather, and sometimes it's a commons, and sometimes it belongs to someone else, somewhere downstream.
- 7y ago
- zip1234 7y agoIt doesn't at all. Most streets are super wide anyways.