5 ms·

This is a real danger lurking among the zoning reform efforts we are seeing all over the english-speaking world. There are so many levers baked into the zoning

This is a real danger lurking among the zoning reform efforts we are seeing all over the english-speaking world. There are so many levers baked into the zoning code to prevent development that it's easy to produce a policy that appears to unwind the restrictions without actually permitting any real progress. My city upzoned the entire city from 1 to 3 units per lot across the whole city a few years ago, which is great. Except they left a parking minimum of 1 per unit, setback requirements, lot coverage maximums, and height restrictions that make it nearly impossible to build additional units that are fit for habitation. A policy that looks great at a glance is awful in practice. I looked into adding a rental unit in my backyard with an architect. The limits resulted in something that would have to be under 400 sq ft / 37 sq m and would be awful to live in. To their credit the city is now looking at moving to 4 units per lot by right and as part of that process is considering fixing some of the gaps they left the last time, but it illustrates the need to look at zoning codes very closely to make sure the intended development is actually allowed (or question if the gaps are being left on purpose).

no_wizard 3y ago
I know I said this in another thread but all zoning reform should really be coupled with a Land Value Tax That would encourage development and encourage making additional reforms to accommodate any unseen / unaddressed issues with the reform
- skybrian 3y ago
  But we just saw that when zoning goes up against financial incentives, zoning wins. Why would more financial incentives help when you can't build anyway? Seems like magical thinking.
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    It’s the reverse really. Though I didn’t realize prop 13 effectively prohibits a LVT, the way it works in simple broad strokes is that it heavily taxes under utilized land, so holding vacant property or undeveloped land etc. becomes more expensive over time. It incentives utilization and thereby would drive more building faster and increase supply, as the more utilized the land becomes the better off it is for the land owner
- crotchfire 3y ago
  I'm afraid you are about to be swarmed by the HN downvoting hordes, for having the impudence to say something actually intelligent here.
  - astrange 3y ago
    LVT is unconstitutional in California (prop 13) and wouldn't help because boomers genuinely believe 1969 was the perfect year and nothing can be allowed to look different from it; you cannot motivate them to stop this with money.
panick21_ 3y ago
Totally agree. The whole zoning code needs to be reworked. In addition to what you mentioned. There are also issues with building regulation as well. The city should work with architects to develop models for housing types that are pre-approved. Such as four-plex that fit into single family neighborhoods. So developers can just pick those up and get building in a short period of time.
- theluketaylor 3y ago
  > The city should work with architects to develop models for housing types that are pre-approved Maybe I'm late to the party, but I recently found out some cities are doing exactly that and I'd love to see it become extremely common. South Bend, IN is an example that has plans ready to be used of housing that is reasonably affordable to build. I'd love to see even more multi-family options, but let's not have perfect be the enemy of good. In my city I'd love to have a catalogue of ADUs shapes and configurations I could just add by right. https://southbendin.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SBBT_Catalog_23-0506-lowres.pdf https://southbendin.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SBBT_Cata...
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    South Bend seems to be doing a lot. They are hosting a lot of talks and engage with all kinds of urbanist ideas. Great to see.
ajmurmann 3y ago
The entire parking minimum mess only exists because we have street parking for which we pay a very high price, but the average voter thinks of as free. I wish we could get rid of it entirely, but that would never fly because it's completely unimaginable to voters. Policy is fun and great; politics is cancer...
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Street parking is free in that it does not cost extra. Just like credit cards are free even though they charge merchants 3%. Everyone loves taking advantage of the commons.
zozbot234 3y ago
400 sq ft sits comfortably within the "tiny home" range. It is quite peculiar in a way, but absolutely not "unlivable" in an absolute sense.
- theluketaylor 3y ago
  That's only true when you can ignore building codes on things like loft stairs and other space-stealers. ADUs in my city must be permanent structures that meet all codes and be fully inspected throughout the build. Anything under 500 sq ft / 46 sq m under north american building codes is a tough scene for livability. There is a related conversation that our building codes have gone too far and are driving up costs due to the space and materials required to comply, and yet I also like bathrooms with grab handles and wide doorways for accessibility. Tricky problem (though we need to kill the 2 stair rule for low and mid-rise apartments asap. There are tons of modern ways to prevent and suppress fires that don't require anywhere near the expense or form-constricting compliance).

no_wizard 3y ago

I know I said this in another thread but all zoning reform should really be coupled with a Land Value Tax That would encourage development and encourage making additional reforms to accommodate any unseen / unaddressed issues with the reform

skybrian 3y ago
But we just saw that when zoning goes up against financial incentives, zoning wins. Why would more financial incentives help when you can't build anyway? Seems like magical thinking.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  It’s the reverse really. Though I didn’t realize prop 13 effectively prohibits a LVT, the way it works in simple broad strokes is that it heavily taxes under utilized land, so holding vacant property or undeveloped land etc. becomes more expensive over time. It incentives utilization and thereby would drive more building faster and increase supply, as the more utilized the land becomes the better off it is for the land owner
crotchfire 3y ago
I'm afraid you are about to be swarmed by the HN downvoting hordes, for having the impudence to say something actually intelligent here.
- astrange 3y ago
  LVT is unconstitutional in California (prop 13) and wouldn't help because boomers genuinely believe 1969 was the perfect year and nothing can be allowed to look different from it; you cannot motivate them to stop this with money.

panick21_ 3y ago

Totally agree. The whole zoning code needs to be reworked. In addition to what you mentioned. There are also issues with building regulation as well. The city should work with architects to develop models for housing types that are pre-approved. Such as four-plex that fit into single family neighborhoods. So developers can just pick those up and get building in a short period of time.

theluketaylor 3y ago
> The city should work with architects to develop models for housing types that are pre-approved Maybe I'm late to the party, but I recently found out some cities are doing exactly that and I'd love to see it become extremely common. South Bend, IN is an example that has plans ready to be used of housing that is reasonably affordable to build. I'd love to see even more multi-family options, but let's not have perfect be the enemy of good. In my city I'd love to have a catalogue of ADUs shapes and configurations I could just add by right. https://southbendin.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SBBT_Catalog_23-0506-lowres.pdf https://southbendin.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SBBT_Cata...
- panick21_ 3y ago
  South Bend seems to be doing a lot. They are hosting a lot of talks and engage with all kinds of urbanist ideas. Great to see.

ajmurmann 3y ago

The entire parking minimum mess only exists because we have street parking for which we pay a very high price, but the average voter thinks of as free. I wish we could get rid of it entirely, but that would never fly because it's completely unimaginable to voters. Policy is fun and great; politics is cancer...

HDThoreaun 3y ago
Street parking is free in that it does not cost extra. Just like credit cards are free even though they charge merchants 3%. Everyone loves taking advantage of the commons.

zozbot234 3y ago

400 sq ft sits comfortably within the "tiny home" range. It is quite peculiar in a way, but absolutely not "unlivable" in an absolute sense.

theluketaylor 3y ago
That's only true when you can ignore building codes on things like loft stairs and other space-stealers. ADUs in my city must be permanent structures that meet all codes and be fully inspected throughout the build. Anything under 500 sq ft / 46 sq m under north american building codes is a tough scene for livability. There is a related conversation that our building codes have gone too far and are driving up costs due to the space and materials required to comply, and yet I also like bathrooms with grab handles and wide doorways for accessibility. Tricky problem (though we need to kill the 2 stair rule for low and mid-rise apartments asap. There are tons of modern ways to prevent and suppress fires that don't require anywhere near the expense or form-constricting compliance).