38 ms·

This is the right answer, but it's only the right answer in the face of sane zoning that ensures it's usually cheaper to upgrade lower to much higher density ra

This is the right answer, but it's only the right answer in the face of sane zoning that ensures it's usually cheaper to upgrade lower to much higher density rather than knock down/renovate old high density to create new luxury high density. If you have the north american situation of the vast majority of residential being zoned single family then you will never get cheap high density for long because it will always make sense to upgrade or demolish and rebuild high density luxury on that scarce high density zoned land. My personal opinion is we need to get rid of the split zoning and instead have the higher density residential zones include the allowed uses/buildings from the lower density and then get rid of single family altogether and have the lowest density zoning be something like a 4 story town house (while allowing someone to buy that land and build a single family home if they want). We also need to make the split much less harsh between that zoning and much higher density zoning so there's always an excess of land zoned for higher density but occupied by lower density, older buildings so that every time we tear down something old and cheap to rent we end up with more luxury units that will transition into more old and cheap to rent units over time.

bombcar 3y ago
You need something like "ratcheting zoning" - if someone wants to redevelop a single-family plot into a duplex; by default it should be allowed; encouraged. If they want redevelop a 4plex into a single-family home; that requires more investigation and a variance.
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  I don't agree. If someone wants to do that they should be allowed to without extra government interference because if they are doing that because it's profit maximizing then we screwed up in our zoning already. Our problem isn't the one off (probably rich people) going against the profit maximizing trend on development (probably because it's their own home and they are willing to forgo profit for other benefits like a bigger yard). Our problem is that we have a cascading scarcity of dense land zoning so at every level above single family it almost always make sense to renovate or tear down to be able to charge luxury prices instead of doing basic maintenance to maintain habitability while charging lower and lower rent as the building degrades over several decades before finally being renovated or rebuilt decades later than they are now. So what you need is for the city to ensure there's always a decent supply of excess land zoned for each density level owned broadly enough that oligopoly BS doesn't come into play so that the profit maximizing choice is to always buy a plot of land with less density or with an actually uninhabitable building on it and build more density and they need to do this at every density level in their code. That's the big picture problem with North American cities. There are sub problems to this (like how we are providing parking wrong, suboptimal public service design, especially transport infrastructure) but the above is the big picture biggest problem
- xnx 3y ago
  Is there any system where relevant/affected parties (e.g. neighbors) could sell-off their rights to exclusive zoning? e.g. Neighbors complain about the extra traffic, shadows, or diminishment of "character" that new zoning would bring, so they can get compensated for their vote to allow it? Maybe a similar example is where NYC buildings sold off their air rights to allow for supertall buildings by Central Park?

bombcar 3y ago

You need something like "ratcheting zoning" - if someone wants to redevelop a single-family plot into a duplex; by default it should be allowed; encouraged. If they want redevelop a 4plex into a single-family home; that requires more investigation and a variance.

snapplebobapple 3y ago
I don't agree. If someone wants to do that they should be allowed to without extra government interference because if they are doing that because it's profit maximizing then we screwed up in our zoning already. Our problem isn't the one off (probably rich people) going against the profit maximizing trend on development (probably because it's their own home and they are willing to forgo profit for other benefits like a bigger yard). Our problem is that we have a cascading scarcity of dense land zoning so at every level above single family it almost always make sense to renovate or tear down to be able to charge luxury prices instead of doing basic maintenance to maintain habitability while charging lower and lower rent as the building degrades over several decades before finally being renovated or rebuilt decades later than they are now. So what you need is for the city to ensure there's always a decent supply of excess land zoned for each density level owned broadly enough that oligopoly BS doesn't come into play so that the profit maximizing choice is to always buy a plot of land with less density or with an actually uninhabitable building on it and build more density and they need to do this at every density level in their code. That's the big picture problem with North American cities. There are sub problems to this (like how we are providing parking wrong, suboptimal public service design, especially transport infrastructure) but the above is the big picture biggest problem
xnx 3y ago
Is there any system where relevant/affected parties (e.g. neighbors) could sell-off their rights to exclusive zoning? e.g. Neighbors complain about the extra traffic, shadows, or diminishment of "character" that new zoning would bring, so they can get compensated for their vote to allow it? Maybe a similar example is where NYC buildings sold off their air rights to allow for supertall buildings by Central Park?