7 ms·

> > some developers are betting that empty malls can mix housing with stores and community space. > it was developers and city councils who caused this mess in

> > some developers are betting that empty malls can mix housing with stores and community space. > it was developers and city councils who caused this mess in the first place. I never understood why the US and some other countries have such a strict separation between normal business/work areas and many EU cities do not have such a strict separation and it just works very well. Sure some industry which causes a lot of noise or other pollution is not allowed interleaved with housing and industries which need a lot of space tend to be outside of the city because of land cost. But everything else can nicely interleave. For example Berlin it's not uncommon to have small shops on the ground floor, some offices or doctors on the first floor and apartments above that. While many new buildings sadly don't have this anymore they still interleave shopping males, doctor houses and offices with apartment blocks.

gbear605 6y ago
That’s common in many places in the US, especially in older areas like New England.
- dathinab 6y ago
  Nice to hear.
CalRobert 6y ago
Imagine you park on the street and don't pay for it. Now imagine I open a restaurant next door. Diners park on the street. All of a sudden you can't mooch off of public land to store your private property! Time to go shout at your planners about traffic and parking!
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  What strange invective. Residents of a city who own private property pay property taxes, sales taxes, and fuel taxes to build and maintain roads. The people they are "mooching off" are themselves. Likewise, if your city has set you up with some amenity like parking, and you plan your property purchase around it, and they take it away to give to someone else, it's quite reasonable to get mad — even if the use of that amenity was not specifically deeded to you as private property. There may be other concerns in a city to which they must yield, but it is hardly as if they are entitled freeloaders.
  - CalRobert 6y ago
    Why is it I can fill my garage with junk and park on the street, but not park in my garage and plop a hot tub in the street?
maxlybbert 6y ago
Americans learned that they can use zoning laws to put restrictions on their neighbors’ properties, mainly to keep their own property values high. Unfortunately, American city planners have a lot of bad ideas of what a city should look like. For some reason, stadiums are unreasonably popular ( http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/print_friendly.cgi?page=/osc/reviews/everything/2002-09-09.shtml http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/print_friendly.cgi?page=/osc/... ).
- maxlybbert 6y ago
  Oops: wrong link. It should have been http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/printer_friendly.cgi?page=/essays/warwatch/2003-09-28-1.html http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/printer_friendly.cgi?page=/ess... .
maxsilver 6y ago
Most of the US (including most US cities) dont have strict separation. Every US city has multiple dozens of buildings of mixed live/work spaces. (These are inherently expensive to build and operate, and therefore expensive to rent, so there aren't lots more of them, only because there aren't enough wealthy residents to justify it) And even many affordable neighborhoods of 1960's-looking-suburbs and such, have lots of dental offices / daycare centers / insurance offices / chiropractors / photography studios / private tutors / etc in them. Most people never notice, because they look like any other random ranch house. But they exist, and are permitted by zoning. Historically, some places in the US have family-housing-only zoning laws, not to enforce a "strict separation", but to protect housing affordability or protect public transportation. If you could put 'anything' on that land, it would cost more, preventing people from being able to afford to live there. And if you could put 'anything' there, you might build a superstore or a theme park or similar (which would block other residential residents from using the public transportation network) --- Berlin has strong renter protections, rent control (freeze + cap), more widespread alternative forms of public transit, and substantial public housing. So the threat of private equity breaking the whole town is a little bit less pressing. The vast majority of America has nothing even remotely close to that. Zoning protections like these are basically the only thing preventing housing prices and transportation availability from being even worse in the US.

gbear605 6y ago

That’s common in many places in the US, especially in older areas like New England.

dathinab 6y ago
Nice to hear.

CalRobert 6y ago

Imagine you park on the street and don't pay for it. Now imagine I open a restaurant next door. Diners park on the street. All of a sudden you can't mooch off of public land to store your private property! Time to go shout at your planners about traffic and parking!

fennecfoxen 6y ago
What strange invective. Residents of a city who own private property pay property taxes, sales taxes, and fuel taxes to build and maintain roads. The people they are "mooching off" are themselves. Likewise, if your city has set you up with some amenity like parking, and you plan your property purchase around it, and they take it away to give to someone else, it's quite reasonable to get mad — even if the use of that amenity was not specifically deeded to you as private property. There may be other concerns in a city to which they must yield, but it is hardly as if they are entitled freeloaders.
- CalRobert 6y ago
  Why is it I can fill my garage with junk and park on the street, but not park in my garage and plop a hot tub in the street?

maxlybbert 6y ago

Americans learned that they can use zoning laws to put restrictions on their neighbors’ properties, mainly to keep their own property values high. Unfortunately, American city planners have a lot of bad ideas of what a city should look like. For some reason, stadiums are unreasonably popular ( http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/print_friendly.cgi?page=/osc/reviews/everything/2002-09-09.shtml http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/print_friendly.cgi?page=/osc/... ).

maxlybbert 6y ago
Oops: wrong link. It should have been http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/printer_friendly.cgi?page=/essays/warwatch/2003-09-28-1.html http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/printer_friendly.cgi?page=/ess... .

maxsilver 6y ago

Most of the US (including most US cities) dont have strict separation. Every US city has multiple dozens of buildings of mixed live/work spaces. (These are inherently expensive to build and operate, and therefore expensive to rent, so there aren't lots more of them, only because there aren't enough wealthy residents to justify it) And even many affordable neighborhoods of 1960's-looking-suburbs and such, have lots of dental offices / daycare centers / insurance offices / chiropractors / photography studios / private tutors / etc in them. Most people never notice, because they look like any other random ranch house. But they exist, and are permitted by zoning. Historically, some places in the US have family-housing-only zoning laws, not to enforce a "strict separation", but to protect housing affordability or protect public transportation. If you could put 'anything' on that land, it would cost more, preventing people from being able to afford to live there. And if you could put 'anything' there, you might build a superstore or a theme park or similar (which would block other residential residents from using the public transportation network) --- Berlin has strong renter protections, rent control (freeze + cap), more widespread alternative forms of public transit, and substantial public housing. So the threat of private equity breaking the whole town is a little bit less pressing. The vast majority of America has nothing even remotely close to that. Zoning protections like these are basically the only thing preventing housing prices and transportation availability from being even worse in the US.