4 ms·

>urban woes The "urban woes" that suburban zoning laws were passed to prevent were minorities, not factories. The roots of zoning and NIMBY attitudes are racia

>urban woes The "urban woes" that suburban zoning laws were passed to prevent were minorities, not factories. The roots of zoning and NIMBY attitudes are racial segregation.[0] [0]https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Color-of-Law/ https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Color-of-Law/

helen___keller 5y ago
I agree, but there were genuinely a lot of issues with industrial revolution living (tenements, poor sanitation, pollution, etc) and preventing these is something I've seen as a pro-zoning talking point.
dionidium 5y ago
Yes, but not just that. Euclid v. Ambler makes it clear that modern zoning is also about pathologizing apartment living. It was a direct attack on density, which it literally described as parasitic. The decision is pretty wild: > "With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances." Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/365 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/365 This is all plainly nonsense. These judges don't like apartment buildings. Great. Good for them. I don't like disco or onions. But they invented a constitutional justification for their distaste from thin air and that's modern zoning.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  Wow. Yeah, that's some chutzpah: > ...in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Ironically it's the low density that's parasitizing the city because the infrastructure maintenance is far more costly than what the low density residential tax base can support.

helen___keller 5y ago

I agree, but there were genuinely a lot of issues with industrial revolution living (tenements, poor sanitation, pollution, etc) and preventing these is something I've seen as a pro-zoning talking point.

dionidium 5y ago

Yes, but not just that. Euclid v. Ambler makes it clear that modern zoning is also about pathologizing apartment living. It was a direct attack on density, which it literally described as parasitic. The decision is pretty wild: > "With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances." Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/365 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/365 This is all plainly nonsense. These judges don't like apartment buildings. Great. Good for them. I don't like disco or onions. But they invented a constitutional justification for their distaste from thin air and that's modern zoning.

mullingitover 5y ago
Wow. Yeah, that's some chutzpah: > ...in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Ironically it's the low density that's parasitizing the city because the infrastructure maintenance is far more costly than what the low density residential tax base can support.