3 ms·

Relaxing zoning codes to allow new, higher-density development is a progressive idea in contemporary urbanism. In a lot (but not all) of cases, it literally com

Relaxing zoning codes to allow new, higher-density development is a progressive idea in contemporary urbanism. In a lot (but not all) of cases, it literally comes down to wealthy landowners vs. young non-landowners, and the former group typically skews conservative in every sense. edit: And it also comes into conflict with political progressives for essentially not being progressive enough, since it allows for new housing to be built that some people are still priced out of. So I think the angle that they're trying to hand-wave zoning deregulation as being "good" by using the word "progressive" is doubly misguided.

nickff 6y ago
Zoning was a progressive idea! Zoning is a child of the administrative state. Removing zoning is a (classical) liberal move.
- caconym_ 6y ago
  > Zoning was a progressive idea! Zoning is a child of the administrative state. Well, like I said, upzoning is still not super popular with progressives as in American progressives, because of the leftist crossover and social justice angle there. But I still think it’s correct to describe it as progressive in the context of contemporary urbanism. We just have to accept that these terms are overloaded and make sure we agree on what we’re talking about. “Conservative” has the exact same problem—there’s what the encyclopedia says it is, and what American conservatives say it is, and what American conservatives actually do (not such big fans of small government after all, I think).
  - nickff 6y ago
    You’re saying that what progressives championed in the early 1900s, and continue to support (as evidenced by the reality in progressive-dominated cities) is conservative. It doesn’t make much sense. The conservative movement never really had much to say about housing policy as far as I can tell. Classical liberals on the other hand, have been consistently anti-regulation.
    - caconym_ 6y ago
      > You’re saying that what progressives championed in the early 1900s, and continue to support is conservative. It doesn’t make much sense. Why doesn’t it make sense? Political progressives and older land-owning (relative) conservatives have different reasons for opposing upzoning, but they clearly do agree in their opposition to it. Beyond that, I specifically called out that these terms are overloaded and I’m trying to be relatively explicit about what I mean when I use them. I’m not interested in arguing for positions I never took, e.g. that “the conservative movement never really had much to say about housing policy”. I’m not talking about any movement—I’m talking about people who are, fundamentally, conservative. They may be granola-chomping, Smartwool-and-Birkenstock-wearing, Prius-driving, ex-hippie boomers who’ve never voted GOP in their lives, but if they own land and oppose upzoning because they don’t want their single family home neighborhoods to change, then they are, in a sense (to be clear, the same sense I’ve been talking about this whole time), conservative.
      - nickff 6y ago
        It seems to me that you (and the article) are re-defining terms willy-nilly for reasons I can't quite discern. Why not just use terms as they're generally understood, instead of encoding your ideas?
        caconym_ 6y ago
        These are very overloaded words, which you will understand if you look them up in a dictionary. If you do, you will also see the definitions I’m using—nobody is “re-defining” anything. I am simply using these words because they mean what they mean, and not trying to make some broader “encoded” point about politics or whatever else. If you choose to ignore the intended meaning of my comments (which I have more or less spelled out for you at this point, no contextual awareness required), that’s not my problem, and I’m not going to follow you down that rabbit hole. edit: If there is one political point I am sort of getting at, it’s probably the hypocrisy of older self-identified “liberals” who oppose densification/upzoning. Viewed through either a classical liberal or a left-liberal lens, using regulation to block affordable housing is not good, yet a lot of these people support it because they’re the beneficiaries of the status quo. And that, in a sense, is the attitude at the core of practical conservatism.
- astrange 6y ago
  Zoning was introduced to California literally for the purpose of making white-only neighborhoods. You can even read them discussing it in Berkeley city council minutes. In particular “residential” zoning was because Chinese were known for running businesses like laundries out of their homes. However, the left wing boomers currently running cities came up in the 60s when opposing construction like freeways and urban renewal was the activist thing to do, since they intentionally placed the freeways to tear down black neighborhoods.
  - nickff 6y ago
    And? The progressive movement was extremely racist.

nickff 6y ago

Zoning was a progressive idea! Zoning is a child of the administrative state. Removing zoning is a (classical) liberal move.

caconym_ 6y ago
> Zoning was a progressive idea! Zoning is a child of the administrative state. Well, like I said, upzoning is still not super popular with progressives as in American progressives, because of the leftist crossover and social justice angle there. But I still think it’s correct to describe it as progressive in the context of contemporary urbanism. We just have to accept that these terms are overloaded and make sure we agree on what we’re talking about. “Conservative” has the exact same problem—there’s what the encyclopedia says it is, and what American conservatives say it is, and what American conservatives actually do (not such big fans of small government after all, I think).
- nickff 6y ago
  You’re saying that what progressives championed in the early 1900s, and continue to support (as evidenced by the reality in progressive-dominated cities) is conservative. It doesn’t make much sense. The conservative movement never really had much to say about housing policy as far as I can tell. Classical liberals on the other hand, have been consistently anti-regulation.
  - caconym_ 6y ago
    > You’re saying that what progressives championed in the early 1900s, and continue to support is conservative. It doesn’t make much sense. Why doesn’t it make sense? Political progressives and older land-owning (relative) conservatives have different reasons for opposing upzoning, but they clearly do agree in their opposition to it. Beyond that, I specifically called out that these terms are overloaded and I’m trying to be relatively explicit about what I mean when I use them. I’m not interested in arguing for positions I never took, e.g. that “the conservative movement never really had much to say about housing policy”. I’m not talking about any movement—I’m talking about people who are, fundamentally, conservative. They may be granola-chomping, Smartwool-and-Birkenstock-wearing, Prius-driving, ex-hippie boomers who’ve never voted GOP in their lives, but if they own land and oppose upzoning because they don’t want their single family home neighborhoods to change, then they are, in a sense (to be clear, the same sense I’ve been talking about this whole time), conservative.
    - nickff 6y ago
      It seems to me that you (and the article) are re-defining terms willy-nilly for reasons I can't quite discern. Why not just use terms as they're generally understood, instead of encoding your ideas?
      - caconym_ 6y ago
        These are very overloaded words, which you will understand if you look them up in a dictionary. If you do, you will also see the definitions I’m using—nobody is “re-defining” anything. I am simply using these words because they mean what they mean, and not trying to make some broader “encoded” point about politics or whatever else. If you choose to ignore the intended meaning of my comments (which I have more or less spelled out for you at this point, no contextual awareness required), that’s not my problem, and I’m not going to follow you down that rabbit hole. edit: If there is one political point I am sort of getting at, it’s probably the hypocrisy of older self-identified “liberals” who oppose densification/upzoning. Viewed through either a classical liberal or a left-liberal lens, using regulation to block affordable housing is not good, yet a lot of these people support it because they’re the beneficiaries of the status quo. And that, in a sense, is the attitude at the core of practical conservatism.
astrange 6y ago
Zoning was introduced to California literally for the purpose of making white-only neighborhoods. You can even read them discussing it in Berkeley city council minutes. In particular “residential” zoning was because Chinese were known for running businesses like laundries out of their homes. However, the left wing boomers currently running cities came up in the 60s when opposing construction like freeways and urban renewal was the activist thing to do, since they intentionally placed the freeways to tear down black neighborhoods.
- nickff 6y ago
  And? The progressive movement was extremely racist.