3 ms·
Yeah, that's why the title is kind of meaningless here. If you did the opposite (make it illegal to build single families in an area with only single families,
by shados 6y ago
Yeah, that's why the title is kind of meaningless here. If you did the opposite (make it illegal to build single families in an area with only single families, to promote density), you'd end up with the exact same issue.
A title like "Zoning laws explicitly forbid increasing density" or something would be more interesting/accurate. Saying "X% of houses would be illegal OMGZ!", while true, is not particularly productive as it implies its bad, but the a solution using zoning to increase density could have the exact same headline.
- handmodel 6y agoI'm aware of very limited cases in which there is minimum density zoning on lots. It is just that given a vacant lot within a demand area developers are going to naturally build the highest density legally allowed. I'm fairly certain you could buy an apartment building in Manhattan, demolish it, and build a picket-fence house there. It was just lose you tens or hundreds of millions of dollars so no one has done it. From what I can tell the way that interactive was constructed it would also highlight a lot if it fell into the category you mentioned but I can't find any where this is the case. It is a one-side problem and to pretend like it is two-sided is a bit detached from reality.
- drewgross 6y agoThe map also explicitly lists "number of homes that would be illegal", presumably for that reason. If you make it illegal to build anything smaller than a duplex, on a lot that currently contains a single family home, the "number of illegal homes" on that lot is still zero.