3 ms·

You don't even have to go that far, just ban single-family-only zoning. The economic pressure to add more units will take care of the rest.

masklinn 3y ago
And more generally move zoning to a nuisance basis (as in Japan or Europe), euclidian exclusionary zoning is a root cause of suburbian sprawl and dead areas. That means local shops can pop up, and city centers are able to progressively transition upwards at the edges (and plots can be upzoned) instead of having a sea of low-density housing suddenly becoming a bunch of skyscrapers.
- pandaman 3y ago
  Zoning is already on the nuisance basis in many places in the US. It means local shops cannot pop up in residential neighborhoods if nobody wants to live near such a shop. If residents are fine with traffic, noise and pests they can vote for changing zoning on any lot to commercial. High density residential is almost the same, except there are also physical limitations of the infrastructure.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    That's specifically not what nuisance basis means. That's exclusionary zoning, and the co-morbid NIMBY-ism. In a nuisance basis zoning system, an area would not be zoned like that, a business would only be forbidden if it exceeded the nuisance level for the zone. So in most areas, small stores and restaurants are allowed, because they are low-nuisance businesses. Even in very low nuisance areas, businesses traditionally run out of homes (e.g. very small offices, some forms of medical services, small shops, very small convenience stores / corner shops) could not be forbidden. Commercial zoning would be for "disruptive" commerces due to traffic, noise, space requirements, sight, ...
    - pandaman 3y ago
      So correct me if I get you incorrectly. 1. "NIMBY" is a Redditism for people who are apparently obsessed with the value of their property and do not allow dense residential construction only because the value of their property will plummet due to increased supply (no nuisance concerns are accepted). 2. The very same "NIMBY" do not allow commercial construction because it decreases residential supply and increases value of their property (which they are obsessed with, see #1), no nuisance concerns are accepted. Did I get it right?
      - masklinn 3y ago
        > So correct me if I get you incorrectly. You do. > Did I get it right? No. Neither of your assertions is relevant to a nuisance-based zoning system. That is the point. They're only possible in an exclusionary zoning system, where plots have to be rezoned in order to have any sort of varied activity.
        pandaman 3y ago
        I don't see where am I. Your opinion is that retail is not nuisance is, you know, just your opinion. American zoning is literally based on nuisance - SFH zoning excludes nuisance sources such as multi-family housing and retail, multi-family zoning excludes retail because it's even bigger sources of nuisance than multi-family housing itself and then there is commercial zoning that is free for all.

masklinn 3y ago

And more generally move zoning to a nuisance basis (as in Japan or Europe), euclidian exclusionary zoning is a root cause of suburbian sprawl and dead areas. That means local shops can pop up, and city centers are able to progressively transition upwards at the edges (and plots can be upzoned) instead of having a sea of low-density housing suddenly becoming a bunch of skyscrapers.

pandaman 3y ago
Zoning is already on the nuisance basis in many places in the US. It means local shops cannot pop up in residential neighborhoods if nobody wants to live near such a shop. If residents are fine with traffic, noise and pests they can vote for changing zoning on any lot to commercial. High density residential is almost the same, except there are also physical limitations of the infrastructure.
- masklinn 3y ago
  That's specifically not what nuisance basis means. That's exclusionary zoning, and the co-morbid NIMBY-ism. In a nuisance basis zoning system, an area would not be zoned like that, a business would only be forbidden if it exceeded the nuisance level for the zone. So in most areas, small stores and restaurants are allowed, because they are low-nuisance businesses. Even in very low nuisance areas, businesses traditionally run out of homes (e.g. very small offices, some forms of medical services, small shops, very small convenience stores / corner shops) could not be forbidden. Commercial zoning would be for "disruptive" commerces due to traffic, noise, space requirements, sight, ...
  - pandaman 3y ago
    So correct me if I get you incorrectly. 1. "NIMBY" is a Redditism for people who are apparently obsessed with the value of their property and do not allow dense residential construction only because the value of their property will plummet due to increased supply (no nuisance concerns are accepted). 2. The very same "NIMBY" do not allow commercial construction because it decreases residential supply and increases value of their property (which they are obsessed with, see #1), no nuisance concerns are accepted. Did I get it right?
    - masklinn 3y ago
      > So correct me if I get you incorrectly. You do. > Did I get it right? No. Neither of your assertions is relevant to a nuisance-based zoning system. That is the point. They're only possible in an exclusionary zoning system, where plots have to be rezoned in order to have any sort of varied activity.
      - pandaman 3y ago
        I don't see where am I. Your opinion is that retail is not nuisance is, you know, just your opinion. American zoning is literally based on nuisance - SFH zoning excludes nuisance sources such as multi-family housing and retail, multi-family zoning excludes retail because it's even bigger sources of nuisance than multi-family housing itself and then there is commercial zoning that is free for all.