3 ms·

I'm a big fan of the work some cities have done in zoning "urban villages", and as a homeowner who's also aware of the need for more housing, these strike a pre

I'm a big fan of the work some cities have done in zoning "urban villages", and as a homeowner who's also aware of the need for more housing, these strike a pretty reasonable compromise in my mind. Essentially, pick some areas that are in-demand, have reasonable transit amenities, and are underbuilt. Zone them to be able to build slightly more dense housing. Then as those villages grow more, expand the radius outward and allow more density in the core areas. I think it's reasonable to not want a highrise next to your house, but a two-story apartment building is easier to digest. Likewise, if you buy a house in one of these urban villages, you're pricing in the reality that something big might be built right next to you. The radius-outward approach lets buyers put their money where their mouth is: if they never want any increases in density near them, then they can pay to be far from these existing villages. If in the future different locations become desirable for density, the slow radial-out buildup of zoned villages lets homeowners adapt reasonably well.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago
Urban villages are a nice concept and they offer a doable, gradual way to upzone American cities along existing arterials. I've been a big fan of them on paper. The problem is often the implementation. Urban village zoning can place tough restrictions on market-rate development (they usually have carve-outs for BMR or affordable housing with fewer requirements) which discourage development. Urban villages aren't immune from NIMBY pressure either, especially if they're being built in an area that was previously only zoned for commercial or light industrial uses. [1] talks about San Jose's urban villages which are often built in formerly light industrial zones and some of the issues with getting them off the ground. It's a shame because I feel like urban villages satisfy the need for upzoning in a way that doesn't completely jar the urban fabric of an area. [1]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/13/why-some-say-san-joses-urban-village-strategy-for-growth-is-driving-development-away/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/13/why-some-say-san-jose...

Karrot_Kream 4y ago

Urban villages are a nice concept and they offer a doable, gradual way to upzone American cities along existing arterials. I've been a big fan of them on paper. The problem is often the implementation. Urban village zoning can place tough restrictions on market-rate development (they usually have carve-outs for BMR or affordable housing with fewer requirements) which discourage development. Urban villages aren't immune from NIMBY pressure either, especially if they're being built in an area that was previously only zoned for commercial or light industrial uses. [1] talks about San Jose's urban villages which are often built in formerly light industrial zones and some of the issues with getting them off the ground. It's a shame because I feel like urban villages satisfy the need for upzoning in a way that doesn't completely jar the urban fabric of an area. [1]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/13/why-some-say-san-joses-urban-village-strategy-for-growth-is-driving-development-away/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/13/why-some-say-san-jose...