3 ms·

I think this approach kind of has cause and effect backwards. Certainly an element of zoning laws will be driven by NIMBYism, but equally an element of zoning i

I think this approach kind of has cause and effect backwards. Certainly an element of zoning laws will be driven by NIMBYism, but equally an element of zoning is needed to build functional cities. You don’t want heavy industry to be co-located with residential areas, for no other reason than heavy industry occasionally have catastrophic accidents that destroy many square miles of buildings. You don’t want residential buildings in that blast radius. Equally zoning laws that specify the exact type of housing in a residential area strikes me as counterproductive, and clear case of NIMBYism encoded in policy. I am fan of planning policy that restricts building types in order to mitigate obvious health risks. And provides guidance on where commercial and residential areas are (but doesn’t introduce strict restrictions). After that I think people should be allowed to build where they want. If they want a house in the middle of a commercial district, that’s their choice. Just don’t complain about the noise.

masklinn 5y ago
> I think this approach kind of has cause and effect backwards. Certainly an element of zoning laws will be driven by NIMBYism, but equally an element of zoning is needed to build functional cities. > > You don’t want heavy industry to be co-located with residential areas, for no other reason than heavy industry occasionally have catastrophic accidents that destroy many square miles of buildings. You don’t want residential buildings in that blast radius. It is very much true that you need zoning, but the most egregious elements of american zoning are the outcome of NIMBYism and racism, and yet american zoning will allow schools within the blast radius of chemical plants. Horrifyingly, I was thinking of the 2013 West Fertiliser plant and checking whether my recollection that there had been a school nearby was correct (it was) when I discovered that in 2019 a TPC plant blowing up also damaged a nearby school. > After that I think people should be allowed to build where they want. If they want a house in the middle of a commercial district, that’s their choice. Just don’t complain about the noise. IIRC, japanese zoning works in terms of "nuisance levels" (noise, pollution, traffic, …). You could have a house in the middle of a mid-level nuisance commercial district, but not a noisy business in the middle of a (low nuisance) residential district; however low-nuisance businesses would be allowed just fine.

masklinn 5y ago

> I think this approach kind of has cause and effect backwards. Certainly an element of zoning laws will be driven by NIMBYism, but equally an element of zoning is needed to build functional cities. > > You don’t want heavy industry to be co-located with residential areas, for no other reason than heavy industry occasionally have catastrophic accidents that destroy many square miles of buildings. You don’t want residential buildings in that blast radius. It is very much true that you need zoning, but the most egregious elements of american zoning are the outcome of NIMBYism and racism, and yet american zoning will allow schools within the blast radius of chemical plants. Horrifyingly, I was thinking of the 2013 West Fertiliser plant and checking whether my recollection that there had been a school nearby was correct (it was) when I discovered that in 2019 a TPC plant blowing up also damaged a nearby school. > After that I think people should be allowed to build where they want. If they want a house in the middle of a commercial district, that’s their choice. Just don’t complain about the noise. IIRC, japanese zoning works in terms of "nuisance levels" (noise, pollution, traffic, …). You could have a house in the middle of a mid-level nuisance commercial district, but not a noisy business in the middle of a (low nuisance) residential district; however low-nuisance businesses would be allowed just fine.