I think it's an interesting question to ponder. If neighbourhood character was so important and valuable, what would be the fairest way to enforce/preserve it,

I think it's an interesting question to ponder. If neighbourhood character was so important and valuable, what would be the fairest way to enforce/preserve it, while not hideously distorting the market? In other words, under the legacy zoning system, its true that buying into a neighbourhood basically gave you a decade+ guarantee on the character staying similar. And yes, the desirability translates into higher prices. Except that the higher prices only flow to the person selling the house (ie, the person who is LEAVING the neighborhood), and is highly concentrated. Where-as the negative externalities (reduced housing stock) are borne by everyone else. Yes, the extra value is reflected in property taxes, but I don't think that really reflects properly... and definitely isn't helping control housing costs. If a substantial portion of the neighbourhood character is coming from the zoning laws, then actually the people who are residing there are contributing just as much to the maintenance of that aspect as everyone else in the city. The people living in the neighbourhood are doing very little day to day to maintain that aspect of the neighbourhood they find attractive. In other words, the -city- is generating that value, not the people living there. Perhaps there could be a mechanism where-by the extra value of "locking down" a zone to SFH was instead redirected to other neighbourhoods? Differential property taxes based on zoning or lot density?