9 ms·
Arbitrary Lines: The way restrctive zoning costs all of us
- bittercynic 4y ago>The activist asked, “How much more burden can we put on our environment?” I think activists deliberately talk past each other on this. It seems clear that the apartment tower puts a larger burden on the very local environment, and having people spread out in single family homes puts a larger burden on the global environment. Both seem like important considerations, and you can't make informed policy decisions if you refuse to acknowledge 50% of the argument.
- warinukraine 4y ago
- Kalium 4y agoI suspect the idea is to convince people there isn't another 50% of the argument. If you can do that, you're most of the way to winning the argument because you've manage to discredit so much as the idea of disagreement.
- the_gastropod 4y agoPeople have to live somewhere. And the per-capita environmental burden is obviously in favor of density, no? I'm not sure I understand this distinction you're trying to draw.
- bittercynic 4y agoThe word 'environment' has strong emotions attached to it, and there's not universal agreement to it's meaning. Environmental impact doesn't just mean CO2 emissions, or water usage. For those things, I think most people agree that higher density is preferable. Our environment can also refer to the things that have a direct and immediate impact on our experiences, and density often comes with noise, crowding, diminished sense of community with the people you see near your home... Maybe we all need to get used to the inconveniences that come with higher density, but refusing to admit that there are inconveniences seems dishonest. It's that refusal to admit inconveniences that I meant to point out.
- voisin 4y ago> diminished sense of community with the people you see near your home FWIW, I think most “New Urbanists” would argue that density increases sense of community. Rather than living in a soulless suburb where everyone stays indoors or in their backyards, and ventures out for literally every activity (unlikely to be interacting with the same community in many contexts), everyone lives, works, and plays in a densely built city, likely doing all of the above in a few city blocks and interacting with the same people in many contexts. In my experience, having lived in incredibly dense cities and incredibly sparse rural areas, I agree with New Urbanists (but I do certainly see the pros and cons of each style of living).
- sofixa 4y agoI disagree, zoning is very much needed. No human should be forced to live in an industrial area, for noise and pollution reasons if nothing else, those two uses (residential and industrial) should be well separated. There also a few other common sense zoning logics like keeping buildings at a somewhat similar size (e.g. not have skyscrapers next to a single story house, but have mostly houses, mostly midrize buildings, mostly skyscrapers, with the appropriate infrastructure/greenery needed), having appropriate park to density ratios, etc. In the US zoning is abused to hell due to (sometimes historic, sometimes still ongoing) racism and NIMBYism, but that doesn't invalidate the whole concept.
- larsiusprime 4y agoYou can have anti-nuisance laws that accomplish these exact things, and in fact we had those things before we had the modern zoning regime. The book goes into this subject in great detail! You can also have building codes and safety standards without modern euclidean zoning. I strongly recommend you read the book.
- sofixa 4y agoWhat would be the difference between an anti-nuisance law and a zoning law if both prohibit industry in residential areas?
- watwut 4y agoAnti nuisance law allow shops and other small businesses to scattered through area. Zoning does not.
- sofixa 4y agoUnless the zone is 'mid-rize residential with small shops and offices', like is the norm in many European cities.
- larsiusprime 4y agoScope. Anti nuisance laws are specific and targeted whereas zoning laws are overly broad and tend towards central planning of the built environment.
- 2ICofafireteam 4y agoNo mention of cities' disincentive to do things that reduce property values because of potential litigation, bad press, or reducing their income from property tax.
- nayuki 4y agoAt least in Toronto, it doesn't work that way. The amount of tax dollars the city wants to collect is set in advance. The value of each property only affects the share of that property's contribution to the tax base. If everyone's property price doubled, then the rate would be halved. https://torontoist.com/2014/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-property-taxes/ https://torontoist.com/2014/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to...
- chrchang523 4y agoYes, when I learned about this practice, that significantly changed my understanding of the NIMBY problem's solution space. Although high property taxes incidentally constrain NIMBY behavior, they're a cure worse than the disease. It is appropriate for a city like Toronto to be proud of being able to operate with low property taxes. (I'm not going to defend the way CA Proposition 13 distributes the property tax burden between longtime residents and newcomers; but low property taxes on longtime residents should not be considered a problem, ceteris paribus.)
- 2ICofafireteam 4y agoVery cool. I never thought about this approach and seems very fair and would prevent local governments experiencing a lifestyle creep of sorts.
- bombcar 4y agoThat’s how it works here - is it not the case everywhere!
- voisin 4y agoThe only nuance is that the city can push more or less of the tax burden onto commercial properties vs residential properties, and they often push a disproportionate amount onto commercial because commercial doesn’t vote.
- 2ICofafireteam 4y agoI've designed a few homes and while zoning can be very constraining, it's not all bad. When I do a daylight study, its usability in and around the home along with the impacts on energy efficiency are the top concerns when it comes to the design, but considering the neighbours is important too: In city lots at higher latitudes it's easy to cast a patio next door into permanent shade for large parts of the year. For just this reason, I wouldn't throw away all zoning. Setbacks and height restrictions can really constrain me, but prevents me from being a jerk. Density limits and a lot of occupancy type restrictions, on the other hand, can go to Hell. They prevent communities from having diverse properties (and the self sufficiency that comes with it) or evolving to meet local needs.
- sgregnt 4y agoHow about neighbors buy insurance against such a development?
- bombcar 4y agoMore variants allowed would help a lot - if a setback is because of neighbors, allow it to be varianced with cooperation from the neighbors.
- 2ICofafireteam 4y agoThis process is available where I am, but spending thousands of dollars to consultants, meeting with City Planners, attending hearings, and months of waiting with no guarantee scare away a lot of folks.
- voisin 4y agoFor some reason, planners argue that “neighbours change over time” and this is meant to be a reason why this kind of variance can’t be allowed. Makes no sense to me, as future neighbours would know what they are getting into when they buy. Perhaps there needs to be a notice period preventing someone from agreeing to a variance and then selling their house before the variance activity has been completed.
- JadeNB 4y agoUnobtrusive typo: there is an 'i' missing in restrictive.
- ok_dad 4y agoThe Japanese have an excellent method for zoning that prevents the worst cases (industrial next-door to residential, for instance) but doesn't limit things like corner stores below an apartment. https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html https://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.htm...
- kazinator 4y agoYes, every time zoning comes up, someone mentions this. The thing is, in order for mixed uses not to be a nuiscance to each other you need to import the Japanese culture with the Japanese upbringing of individuals together with the Japanese zoning system.
- watwut 4y agoMixed uses are normal worldwide. It is not something special for Japan that requires special conditions to exists.
- TaylorAlexander 4y agoSo what you're saying is, our culture makes nice living impossible, and we should work on that.
- bvoq 4y agoFor an outsider like myself, that seems obvious. I think a great example of this is that driving kids to school is the norm now.
- ok_dad 4y agoYea, it “saves money”. For the school district; parents now have to spend gas to sit in traffic. I guess 40 cars is more efficient than one diesel electric bus, if you’re a penny pinching administrator.
- 4y ago
- ouid 4y agoHouston is incredibly zoned. They dont call it zoning, but most of the city is designated as mandatory parking lot. This makes some sense, since its too unpleasant outside to walk or bike, for the most part, but it does mean that all commercial is functionally zoned as strip mall. There is a large effort to increase bus transportation in houston, but this is a losing battle because of the aforementioned fundamental restrictions on density. Those laws are zoning laws.
- masklinn 4y agoIt's really incredible: https://www.munistandards.com/texas/houston/parking-requirements/ https://www.munistandards.com/texas/houston/parking-requirem... Note that the table has a lot of pages, requirements go up to 14 parking spaces per 1000 sqft GFA for "bars, clubs, or lounges"
- voisin 4y agoAbsolutely wild. In my city, 5 per thousand is the maximum and even that creates oceans of under-utilized parking lots. 14 is absurd. In another city I lived in, developers were required to have traffic studies that would show the theoretical parking demand on the 20th busiest day of the year, and that was the parking requirement. You can imagine the garbage-in, garbage-out assumptions that became standard.
- atoav 4y agoWhich hints at a fundamental question: Which one is better: A dense city with lots of interesting stuff in one square mile or a sprawl with just a few interesting things in one square mile? One of those has more parking than it would ever need. And parking lots don't produce tax revenue, they burn it, because these spaces could all have been other things that being money and support the cost of the actual public roads and infrastructure in that square.
- ouid 4y agoTrick question, the answer is don't live in Houston.
- smeej 4y agoI was surprised to hear that "single-room occupancy" is largely restricted in most residential areas that are meant for single-family dwellings. What is the difference between "an SRO renter" and "a roommate"? If you share a kitchen and bathroom, aren't you really just roommates? That's how I've always described the other people living in my dwelling when we each have our own bedrooms but share the other areas of the house. Even in single-family-zoned areas, it's common for two or more unrelated people to rent a property together as roommates, so what's the difference if one of them happens to own the building?
- bombcar 4y agoSome college towns have elaborate laws to prevent frats, and having adults living together who are not related by blood or marriage is basically outlawed. It’s weird.
- voisin 4y agoThese rules are all about keeping different “types” of people apart, for the benefit of one type and to the detriment of another type. It’s discriminatory at its core. I come from a college town that had similar rules, and it was all about keeping students, most of whom are completely peaceful, from renting rooms in neighbourhoods that are meant for non-students. Even mature students pursing professions or graduate programs. The result? Increase the costs for students by decreasing the supply of housing.
- opportune 4y agoSROs are usually small rooms, like 150 sq ft, with not many common areas besides a hallway, laundry room, bathroom, and a single shared kitchen. The big difference between SROs and roommates is that your lease is individual, you are sharing amenities with maybe 8-20 people instead of like 3, and you don’t necessarily have things like a shared living room. They’re cheaper than a roommate situation given the drawbacks. Making them illegal is probably a way to try to keep poor people out of the community. Because they’re single occupancy with shared facilities they skew towards poorer, middle aged single men at least in SF, and are kind of a stepping stone for people getting out of homelessness. I think the concept is great but in practice they seem to often end up slummy
- toss1 4y agoInteresting that they start out citing Houston Texas as "the one major city in America that has avoided zoning, was doing well. " The lack of zoning puts people in houses literally adjacent to industrial hazardous waste and Superfund sites. Kids and dogs literally end up playing in hazardous waste, and when the regular hurricanes come, the zone is flooded, spreading the industrial waste directly into residential areas, e.g., [0,1]. But no, because they can cite evidence from a century ago that zoning was used in some cases for exclusionary purposes, it must all be bad. I've lived in towns that abandoned zoning, and the only ones it benefits are the fly-by-night land developers, and it is not many years later that it is restored. But that only happens AFTER the abominations that everyone hates are now set it stone, and all they can do is try to prevent more. [0] https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/harvey-toxic-waste-sites-houston https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/harvey-toxic-waste... [1] https://apnews.com/article/floods-health-hurricane-harvey-toxic-sites-houston-27796dd13b9549b0ac76aded58a15122 https://apnews.com/article/floods-health-hurricane-harvey-to...